5.1.7 live release

[MarKr]

Hello!

With a short delay (sorry about that) we officially announce the live release of 5.1.7 patch. Those of you who participated in beta already know what this new version brings but for those of you who have waited for the live version, here is the changelog:

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* (see below for specifics)
- Panzer IV F2 has now AP ammo upgrade as first and HE ammo as second, it used to be the other way which made the game literarly unplayable
- Axis 20mm guns will no longer penetrate Cromwell tanks

US:
- 37mm gun now provides light cover to the crew (applied yellow cover because with green the crew suffers from immortality syndrome)
- Lowered the HP of M26 Pershing to 850 (from 1000)
- Lowered the HP of Pershing Ace to 1050 (from 1200)
- Fixed a bug where adding a .50cal to a tank will would kick a Tank Commander out of the tank
- Field medics can no longer reinforce with paradrop
- Minimum attack range of Recoilless Jeep gun set to 5 (from 0)
- 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 range of HEAT rifle grenade to 40 (from 60)
- Increased aim time of HEAT grenades to 1.5 - 2 sec. (from 0.25)

CW:
- It should be no longer possible to glitch Tulip rockets so that the second one is "guided" at the target
- Applied another tweak to the Emplaced 25 pounders so that they no longer refuse to fire at selected area
- 2-inch mortar will no longer have the "Hold Fire" button displayed twice when the unit enters camouflage mode
- Removed deflection damage from 2 pounder gun on Staghound and unpgraded Daimler

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)
- Sdkfz 234/4 (stubby 75mm gun "Puma") now has proper sound when shooting the HEAT/B shot

PE:
- Fixed a big where double AT grenade required "Experienced Tank Crews" instead of "Double AT Efforts"
- 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

*The text changes and fixes (applied to English texts) specifically:
- M36B1 has now its own description in the Tank Depot (used to have the same as M36)
- Field repairs on US tanks should now properly show the reason why they are unusable when in combat
- 101st Weapon Supply Upgrade no longer mentions weapon cost reduction for non-existent BARs
- .50cal MG nest has now its own description
- Fortified post now informs about its ability to reinforce squads nearby
- Recoilles Jeep will no longer try convince its users that it excels at hunting down enemy snipers
- Staghound no longer states it is a command vehicle
- 88mm Flak36 unlock in Defensive doctrine now also mentions the unlock of 88mm PaK43 emplacement
- Fragmentation sleeve grandes no longer state they can only be used from cover
- Stormtrooper call-in description now states that the squad can infiltrate buildings
- PE Schwimmwagen no longer states it is unarmed
- Fixed description of Light Observation HT
- PE VT no longer mentions 105mm and 88mm arty participating

For more information about the resons for the changes, check this post and look into the "spoiler" parts.

It was in beta branch for quite some time, people reported no problems so hopefully you won't encounter any .

I hope you'll enjoy this one.

Next beta release will bring reworked Blitzkrieg doctrine of WM so stay tuned, we'll inform you once it is available

[Beast Slayer]

Oh boy. What the hell happened? Most if not all description changes you listed are either messed up or not changed at all.

Few examples:

Pantherturm unlock still provide inaccurate information about 88mm pak43 emplacement:

It should unlock after 88mm flak instead:

Description of Stielgranate 24 still mentions that this grenade can be thrown only outside of cover:

Infantry assault team ability have "$18100175 no range" instead of its description:

Same goes for Staghound but on the top of that it still provide misleading information about its role:

Is anybody experiencing the same problem as I do? I never had problems with descriptions like this. Some time ago the description of the American multipurpose mine was changed and that description change was displayed correctly for me so why I have problems with these descriptions suddenly?

If the problem is only on my side then I will probably need to uninstall all mods, vanilla game, manually delete all leftover folders in install directory and documents, clear registry files with ccleaner and reinstall the game only with the blitzkrieg mod and no other mods.

Sad that I need to do this because as I said I never had description problems in this game before.

Weird...

[Viper]

i have not checked. but even if some descriptions are bugged. it's not something serious. they can correct them later.
apart from that. this patch is very clean.

[MarKr]

We're looking into this. It is probably just some issue with the text file not getting overwritten or possibly the new version did not get uploaded. It will be fixed as soon as possible.

[Erich]

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

[mofetagalactica]

- Lowered the HP of Pershing Ace to 1050 (from 1200)
Mmmmmm... this is not good.

[kwok]

You all realize this has been in the test patch with no changes since like forever right?

[mofetagalactica]

When are devs gonna realize that making a beta brench for a low population game and letting it there for like 1 month for peopple to test it has been prove to be totally useless most of the time?
There isn't just enought peopple to beta tests, most of them who write here are busy doing irl work and when they are in home they don't even go for the beta they just want to relax a bit and play a few games and the peopple who actually scheludes some beta games don't have enought games played on it to report bugs they just casually play.

I think it would be just better if you make updates into the live version and when something really goes wrong/broken a hotfix. That way peopple will care more about reporting bugs everything will just go way faster, also you avoid the typical problems of "missing update changes" when moving beta updates to live vers.

[MarKr]

There is a difference between "people can't test" and "people don't wanna test". People have the option to contribute to the development and to releasing a more stable live versions. If they don't want to, they don't need to but then they can't complain about buggy releases.

Also devs are quite busy in their RLs too so "just release a hotfix" could take days or even weeks too, which would mean that the people "who come home from work and just wanna relax and play a few games" would be stuck with the bug(s) for the whole time too.

Anyway, as I wrote there:

For more information about the reasons for the changes, check this post and look into the "spoiler" parts.

So if you've taken a look there you probably noticed this:

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.

(mainly the underlined part)So, practicaly speaking, only the 75mm L48 guns are affected by this change and even for them it applies only on pen.shot which mostly means you need to hit the rear of a Pershing. Also the chance to over-repair them is still there which puts them more or less back to where they were before the change.

[kwok]

I’m pretty sure the main reason people don’t play the beta isn’t because they’re too busy. There are many moments when I’ve logged on and there are plenty of people on and willing to play. And when specifically asked to test the beta, their response has been “because it’s _____ (most the time critiquing something as if it was the live version but went on unreported).” 40% of the time it’s because something is wrong with the beta but it’s never mentioned and we have to spend so much time explaining it’s a testing version that can be fixed if they actually say something. 50% it’s because “nobody plays the beta”. 10% of the time it’s other. And I don’t even think you’ve actually said that the reason you don’t play the beta is because you’re busy but because either others aren’t playing it. I don’t know if I can think of anyone who has said they’re not on the beta because they wanted to just have casual games. Almost everyone wants to play an updated version of the game, and it exists. If I tell people the beta is up, most the time they jump over to play it. But when ask why they don’t continually play it’s an excuse.
Most games start by someone hosting a lobby and then steam messaging around until the lobby is filled. So is it really so hard to do the same but in beta mode instead of regular? If you have enough time to post and complain, I’m pretty sure you have enough time to test.

Edit: sorry figree, not specifically calling you out, this goes out to everyone. The issue is there’s no other solution to complaints about game bugs and updates but testing and there’s a lot of complaining always. So it’s a very damned if you do damned if you don’t situation. You say that fixes should just be implemented right away but there will always be complaints about “how can devs make such a decision without player input”. Testing is literally there for player input. And even if you can’t play the test version, the change log is up for discussion. Just look at warhawks, he wrote and essay (which tbh is hard to take sersipuly because he refuses to play the beta even when he does have time)

[mofetagalactica]

I’m pretty sure the main reason people don’t play the beta isn’t because they’re too busy. There are many moments when I’ve logged on and there are plenty of people on and willing to play. And when specifically asked to test the beta, their response has been “because it’s _____ (most the time critiquing something as if it was the live version but went on unreported).” 40% of the time it’s because something is wrong with the beta but it’s never mentioned and we have to spend so much time explaining it’s a testing version that can be fixed if they actually say something. 50% it’s because “nobody plays the beta”. 10% of the time it’s other. And I don’t even think you’ve actually said that the reason you don’t play the beta is because you’re busy but because either others aren’t playing it. I don’t know if I can think of anyone who has said they’re not on the beta because they wanted to just have casual games. Almost everyone wants to play an updated version of the game, and it exists. If I tell people the beta is up, most the time they jump over to play it. But when ask why they don’t continually play it’s an excuse.
Most games start by someone hosting a lobby and then steam messaging around until the lobby is filled. So is it really so hard to do the same but in beta mode instead of regular? If you have enough time to post and complain, I’m pretty sure you have enough time to test.

Edit: sorry figree, not specifically calling you out, this goes out to everyone. The issue is there’s no other solution to complaints about game bugs and updates but testing and there’s a lot of complaining always. So it’s a very damned if you do damned if you don’t situation. You say that fixes should just be implemented right away but there will always be complaints about “how can devs make such a decision without player input”. Testing is literally there for player input. And even if you can’t play the test version, the change log is up for discussion. Just look at warhawks, he wrote and essay (which tbh is hard to take sersipuly because he refuses to play the beta even when he does have time)

What im trying to say here is why don't you just force peopple to play "betas" by just making the live version as the "beta" ? That way you will receive more complete and faster information about bugs. Its not like errors in future updates will break something that makes the game unbalanced or unplayable, we already had things like that in the live version (CW artillery not working, hotchkiss, acetiger doing cqc damage,leig cannon being shit, etc) its not like the peopple will stop playing just because you fuck up with something, you understand that there is no necesity to make a beta branch with this amount of population?

This is just less work for you and more actual and live information about latest changes, peopple is gonna keep playing it regarding bad changes that can be change later.

You can save betas for really important stuff that somehow changes the whole meta/gameplay? So that way peopple is more intrigued about trying the next update as soon possible, there is no incentive on trying the betas with these kind of changes.

[kwok]

I see what you’re saying. I guess bug fixes going live faster makes sense. It being less work wouldn’t be true though. But markr does most the work so I won’t speak for him.
It’s more work because there are a lot of changes that happen for “beta worthy” things. Making bug fixes while the beta sits means maintaining two sets of the game. One for pure bug fixes and one for the “beta worth” changes. Anytime there is a change necessary, it would need to be updated in both versions, this leaves room for potential differences and mistakes. Like if it wasn’t implemented identically the same in both versions, it’s hard to track those bugs.
The thing that I noticed that are complained about most though are the “beta worthy” changes. Like the Pershing change, the tiger change, etc.

You’re right that the population is small enough beta branches might not be as effective as other games, but in general it’s good practice to have a testing environment. Plus it’s good in general to give people a place where they can play versions that they know is stable and versions where they know upcoming changes and experiments are going on. It’s both clean for devs and respectful for players to manage it this way.

[mofetagalactica]

Thats the thing kwok, the live version isn't really stable or balanced... and it also has problems for me is just an "old beta" lol. How much info you get about pershing's new HP when it was in beta ? nothing 'cause no one uses the beta. You will always have complains about it and if is it in the beta/live version it shouldnt matter that much we know you will work to try to fix them, the peopple who still plays this will still playing 'cause they love the game.

[Viper]

there are always people who test the beta. me and tiger always test together. and sometimes we invite others. but forcing people to play the beta by making it immediately official is not a good idea. it is safer to keep the live version most clean.

and dont forget to announce the new patch on facebook and steam store.

[Warhawks97]

There is a difference between "people can't test" and "people don't wanna test". People have the option to contribute to the development and to releasing a more stable live versions. If they don't want to, they don't need to but then they can't complain about buggy releases.

I dont complain about that and generally i test betas. But sometimes stuff gets introduced that i... well kind of know it wont end up well... for this reason i didnt play betas in pvp when WH AT rifles got introduced in Beta bc i knew that their new role is just beyond that what it should be (replacing 1 to 1 an AT gun + killing light tansk what even AT gun didnt). When it went into life version i tried to do my best to somehow enjoy the game and to live with it but it turned out to be impossible for me at least (and apparently for many others).


Same now with Tigers. I can play such betas in PvE but i would never enjoy a PvP game with tigers being cheaper than Panthers. My experience tells me: At least one Panther is always on the field when a 3 vs 3 game (often even 2 vs 2) exceeds 30 mins of playing. Same will happen now to Tigers.
The Difference is that Tiger has more punch and gets cost effective with less shots fired (one shot philosophy for Tiger vs two shot for Panther)

For more information about the reasons for the changes, check this post and look into the "spoiler" parts. So if you've taken a look there you probably noticed this: 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.(mainly the underlined part)So, practicaly speaking, only the 75mm L48 guns are affected by this change and even for them it applies only on pen.shot which mostly means you need to hit the rear of a Pershing. Also the chance to over-repair them is still there which puts them more or less back to where they were before the change.

Sure. The Pershing dropped in HP, axis and CW lost their bonus damage for AP shells so at the end the ammount of shots to kill a pershing will essentially stay the same here.


However, the German 75 mm L/48 and US 76 guns have equal damage. So how is this possible then:

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.

The Tiger has more HP as Pershing while the guns (75 mm L/48 vs P and 76 mm vs T) have similar pen chances as far as i can remember. So the Tiger would be harder to kill due to more HP.

Someone has to explain that.


Also i still wonder why Jagdpanther is still treated like a heavy Tank in terms of HP while it is just a upper class medium tank like Panther. Panther has 800 HP and Jagdpanther has 1000 (+ Zimmerit damage reduction of 25%).

[Viper]

Also i still wonder why Jagdpanther is still treated like a heavy Tank in terms of HP while it is just a upper class medium tank like Panther. Panther has 800 HP and Jagdpanther has 1000 (+ Zimmerit damage reduction of 25%).

1000 hitpoints are very reasonable for the jagdpanther. because it is a heavy tank destroyer with big gun.

The Tiger has more HP as Pershing while the guns (75 mm L/48 vs P and 76 mm vs T) have similar pen chances as far as i can remember.

i think 76 vs tiger1 has better penetration chances than 75 l48 vs pershing.

Same now with Tigers. I can play such betas in PvE but i would never enjoy a PvP game with tigers being cheaper than Panthers. My experience tells me: At least one Panther is always on the field when a 3 vs 3 game (often even 2 vs 2) exceeds 30 mins of playing. Same will happen now to Tigers.
The Difference is that Tiger has more punch and gets cost effective with less shots fired (one shot philosophy for Tiger vs two shot for Panther)

the price of the tiger tank in blitzkrieg doctrine is 865 manpower and 170 fuel and limit of 2. (4 command point)
the price of the panther in the same doctrine is 770 manpower and 140 fuel and without limit. (6 command point)

the price of the tiger tank in terror doctrine is 840 manpower and 165 fuel, limit of 2. (5 command point)
price of panther in the same doctrine is 890 manpower and 155 fuel, no limit. (7 command point)

price of the pershing is 830 manpower and 150 fuel, no limit. (5 command point)
price of panther in luftwaffe doctrine is 680 manpower and 110 fuel. (5 command point)


where is the problem in all this? please point at the problem. so i can understand you better.

[Warhawks97]

Also i still wonder why Jagdpanther is still treated like a heavy Tank in terms of HP while it is just a upper class medium tank like Panther. Panther has 800 HP and Jagdpanther has 1000 (+ Zimmerit damage reduction of 25%).

1000 hitpoints are very reasonable for the jagdpanther. because it is a heavy tank destroyer with big gun.

Panther was a Medium tank and the Jagdpanther got a heavy gun mounted on a medium tank. Both weight rougly 45 tons, same chassis, same armor thickness, same speeds, same engines etc. A heavy gun doesnt make a tank a heavy tank. Else nashorn would be a heavy tank as well.

The Tiger has more HP as Pershing while the guns (75 mm L/48 vs P and 76 mm vs T) have similar pen chances as far as i can remember.

i think 76 vs tiger1 has better penetration chances than 75 l48 vs pershing.

20,02% for 75 mm vs Pershing, 22,14% for 76 vs Tiger. With AP its 26,60266 75 mm vs Pershing and 34,0956% 76 vs Tiger.
But considering that usually TD´s will be fighting them then Axis TD have more ambush shots thus they benefit tiwce from ambush pen and damage boost.

Same now with Tigers. I can play such betas in PvE but i would never enjoy a PvP game with tigers being cheaper than Panthers. My experience tells me: At least one Panther is always on the field when a 3 vs 3 game (often even 2 vs 2) exceeds 30 mins of playing. Same will happen now to Tigers.
The Difference is that Tiger has more punch and gets cost effective with less shots fired (one shot philosophy for Tiger vs two shot for Panther)

the price of the tiger tank in blitzkrieg doctrine is 865 manpower and 170 fuel and limit of 2. (4 command point)
the price of the panther in the same doctrine is 770 manpower and 140 fuel and without limit. (6 command point)

the price of the tiger tank in terror doctrine is 840 manpower and 165 fuel, limit of 2. (5 command point)
price of panther in the same doctrine is 890 manpower and 155 fuel, no limit. (7 command point)

price of the pershing is 830 manpower and 150 fuel, no limit. (5 command point)
price of panther in luftwaffe doctrine is 680 manpower and 110 fuel. (5 command point)


where is the problem in all this? please point at the problem. so i can understand you better.

See, Terror gets Tigers cheaper than Panthers (ok, 10 fuel difference but in late stages its nothing). CP´s do matter but when players have gone the tank line then it doesnt matter if it costs 5 or 7 CP after 30 mins of intense playing. That matters during the tec up stages and enables units to join earlier. I speak about late stages when things are unlocked and units rebuild repeatedly.

The Limit isnt important. Its not so common to see two Panthers at once by one player due to micro managment limits. The third one would be obsolete and drains unnecessary MP.

There is perhaps a different in BK doc but that doc can trade ammo for fuel anyway and 100 MP in late games arent such a big factor that would matter. Most keep a stock reserve of roughly 800 MP so that losses can be replaced.

[MarKr]

@Hawks: I remember you complaing that forum keeps debating in theory and nothing gets implemented because everyone keeps talking theoreticaly but there is no ingame experience to back up the theory. OK, now we offer ingame experience in betas before release and you denote it upfront based on your theoretical thinking, without actually trying it.

If you provide no feedback in betas, don't complain later. If you then don't like the game, it's partially your fault too, then.

Clearly BK won't be good enough for you untill it is identical to "your" version of the mod of which you have spoken so many times, since BK will never be identical to that, you can save yourself some time and nerves and play your version instead.

[The New BK Champion]

Clearly BK won't be good enough for you untill it is identical to "your" version of the mod of which you have spoken so many times, since BK will never be identical to that, you can save yourself some time and nerves and play your version instead.

Thank you.
I don't know how do you always have so much patience Markr.

[Warhawks97]

@Hawks: I remember you complaing that forum keeps debating in theory and nothing gets implemented because everyone keeps talking theoreticaly but there is no ingame experience to back up the theory. OK, now we offer ingame experience in betas before release and you denote it upfront based on your theoretical thinking, without actually trying it.

Adding exact same accuracy/damage values and even superior pen stats into a rifle is just... i mean practical experience is in my opinion not even needed to see that this idea has severe flaws.

I mean changing reload times a bit, accuracy by a few percentage, penetration stats and so on does require some in game testing, even extensive one... see M1 Garand, 76 guns, 90 mm guns an so on... see churchill armor stuff, comet experiments etc.

But putting gun stats into a rifle? I know how an AT gun works and how much damage it deals. Now imagine that for a rifle with high mobility and 360 degree fire arc. Why should i test it even? I know whats going to happen. Just as i lose a soldier to a sniper almost for sure i lose a vehicle to an anti vehicle sniper. I really dont get what should be tested in pratice here.

If you provide no feedback in betas, don't complain later. If you then don't like the game, it's partially your fault too, then.

Would it have really changed anything? fine i could have played the beta and said that AT rifle sucks. But i wouldnt have got your ears or i would have got them but you would not haven listen anyway and kept arguing with your "it replaces a gun, thus it needs gun stats" stuff. First when others jumped in you recognized that changes need to be made. But those would have joined first after the release, so... why should i stay alone in the rain?

Clearly BK won't be good enough for you untill it is identical to "your" version of the mod of which you have spoken so many times, since BK will never be identical to that, you can save yourself some time and nerves and play your version instead.

and that matches exactly to the previous sentence. You dont care what i say, so why should i test. When i said 76 gun sucks, you didnt listen. When others said the same, you did start to listen but ignored it till today and we still have these moments when hellcats and high tec e8 bounces from Tank IV E and F versions which pisses so many off.


Also this version doesnt have so many differences anymore to what i tested out privately. Pios/engis got hold pos abilties, hull/coax MG´s are not just silly noisemakers with 15 second long usless bursts, cal 50 does something now.... Its basically only the "Tiger issue" (too many CP, too cheap now), 76 gun thing vs medium tanks, stupa/stuh disagreement and the AT rifle(s).... but thats it so far.
And that 76 sucks vs medium tanks and that Tiger should cost less CP are not just my thoughts out here... or that units should be balanced by cost whenever possible, not by strict limits (which are kind of "Kings laws" that player need to accept). Even Kwok said something that Cost should balance units rather than pure limits (which should be imposed only on veeery few units like SP or so)

[The New BK Champion]

@Hawks: I remember you complaing that forum keeps debating in theory and nothing gets implemented because everyone keeps talking theoreticaly but there is no ingame experience to back up the theory. OK, now we offer ingame experience in betas before release and you denote it upfront based on your theoretical thinking, without actually trying it.

Adding exact same accuracy/damage values and even superior pen stats into a rifle is just... i mean practical experience is in my opinion not even needed to see that this idea has severe flaws.

I mean changing reload times a bit, accuracy by a few percentage, penetration stats and so on does require some in game testing, even extensive one... see M1 Garand, 76 guns, 90 mm guns an so on... see churchill armor stuff, comet experiments etc.

But putting gun stats into a rifle? I know how an AT gun works and how much damage it deals. Now imagine that for a rifle with high mobility and 360 degree fire arc. Why should i test it even? I know whats going to happen. Just as i lose a soldier to a sniper almost for sure i lose a vehicle to an anti vehicle sniper. I really dont get what should be tested in pratice here.

If you provide no feedback in betas, don't complain later. If you then don't like the game, it's partially your fault too, then.

Would it have really changed anything? fine i could have played the beta and said that AT rifle sucks. But i wouldnt have got your ears or i would have got them but you would not haven listen anyway and kept arguing with your "it replaces a gun, thus it needs gun stats" stuff. First when others jumped in you recognized that changes need to be made. But those would have joined first after the release, so... why should i stay alone in the rain?

Clearly BK won't be good enough for you untill it is identical to "your" version of the mod of which you have spoken so many times, since BK will never be identical to that, you can save yourself some time and nerves and play your version instead.

and that matches exactly to the previous sentence. You dont care what i say, so why should i test. When i said 76 gun sucks, you didnt listen. When others said the same, you did start to listen but ignored it till today and we still have these moments when hellcats and high tec e8 bounces from Tank IV E and F versions which pisses so many off.


Also this version doesnt have so many differences anymore to what i tested out privately. Pios/engis got hold pos abilties, hull/coax MG´s are not just silly noisemakers with 15 second long usless bursts, cal 50 does something now.... Its basically only the "Tiger issue" (too many CP, too cheap now), 76 gun thing vs medium tanks, stupa/stuh disagreement and the AT rifle(s).... but thats it so far.
And that 76 sucks vs medium tanks and that Tiger should cost less CP are not just my thoughts out here... or that units should be balanced by cost whenever possible, not by strict limits (which are kind of "Kings laws" that player need to accept). Even Kwok said something that Cost should balance units rather than pure limits (which should be imposed only on veeery few units like SP or so)

It's not about what you say. It's about how persistent, passive aggressive and unsettling you are about what you say. You always push your ideas and don't really care about anything else beside proving your points over and over. You are so very fucking tiring to read, not to mention talking to. This is a game, not academic discussion. And you wonder why people don't want listen to you. Who cares if you are right, if you are an egocentrical dick.

[Viper]

See, Terror gets Tigers cheaper than Panthers (ok, 10 fuel difference but in late stages its nothing).

excuse me. so. 890 manpower vs 840 manpower is the problem here? all this outrageous because of that?
you know.........it's very simple to fix this. if panther in terror doctrine would cost 800 manpower instead of 890 manpower.
this way you will not be able to say tiger1 is cheaper than panther in terror doctrine anymore.

Panther was a Medium tank and the Jagdpanther got a heavy gun mounted on a medium tank. Both weight rougly 45 tons, same chassis, same armor thickness, same speeds, same engines etc. A heavy gun doesnt make a tank a heavy tank. Else nashorn would be a heavy tank as well.

and what would be the new price of the jagdpanther? if you will tell me it can be cheaper for less hp. i will ask you.....then what's the difference?
what is the goal?

20,02% for 75 mm vs Pershing, 22,14% for 76 vs Tiger. With AP its 26,60266 75 mm vs Pershing and 34,0956% 76 vs Tiger.
But considering that usually TD´s will be fighting them then Axis TD have more ambush shots thus they benefit tiwce from ambush pen and damage boost.

but the 76 on allied tank destroyers reload faster and they have better mobility so they can flank better and score rear hits. anyway.

And that 76 sucks vs medium tanks and that Tiger should cost less CP are not just my thoughts out here

tiger1 should cost less command points.....yes. but 76 sucks? no.

[Warhawks97]

excuse me. so. 890 manpower vs 840 manpower is the problem here? all this outrageous because of that?
you know.........it's very simple to fix this. if panther in terror doctrine would cost 800 manpower instead of 890 manpower.
this way you will not be able to say tiger1 is cheaper than panther in terror doctrine anymore.

There should be a significant difference in build cost and tec/CP cost. Tigers more costly to build but less tec cost and CP, Panther as mainstay axis battle tank in replacment for Tank IV´s.

Mid game Heavy tank (Tiger) vs late game Medium tank. Now both are more or less reward units for each other.

and what would be the new price of the jagdpanther? if you will tell me it can be cheaper for less hp. i will ask you.....then what's the difference?
what is the goal?

Price?
First of all i would remove the "Mass prod" upgrade from TH doc. Simply they are already mass production design by removing turret. I would place new TD prices between what they cost orignally and after mass prod unlock (eg 420 or 430 MP for Hetzer at default, 540 for the Jagdpanzer IV/70 etc.). The Jagdpanther however would be placed at roughly 800 MP and 150 fuel at default. Depending on upkeep even less. Current Jagdpanther has some sort of "upkeep" issues which makes them as cheap to maintain as regular tank IV´s etc. Normal Panthers have twice the upkeep.

but the 76 on allied tank destroyers reload faster and they have better mobility so they can flank better and score rear hits. anyway.

Which turned out to be just a theory and barely possible in reality due to simply reverse moves, low turret rotation like M10, Schreck/Paust flank protection etc. You are always better of taking out a unit head on and out right from range rather than making high risk moves first.

tiger1 should cost less command points.....yes. but 76 sucks? no.

Vs Medium tanks yes. Imagine a Tank IV H/J bouncing off a stuart, thats how you feel when you get an 76 sherman in an attempt to take out a tank IV/Tank III. Pure frustration. Sometimes you ambush a Tank III with M10, damage his engine, tank III wants to escape, M10 chasing but bounces two more times and eats a schreck/50 mm or you see inf coming at you with anger and you have to break up the attempt.... untill the next time when the Tank III drives into your ambush again.

[kwok]

I can explain the HP thing at least. I don’t have the exact numbers with me because I’m not at home. But basically it’s because we calc’d min/max hits thay would kill a unit based on matchups. The intervals of which at which a tiger/pschreck can chunk down a Pershing is a certain amount. No matter what you roll, a tiger penetrating a Pershing twice will always kill it, three times with over repair. Same with pschreck. There’s a band of tolerance there before that changes, we stayed in that band. Meanwhile the 75mm gun does much less damage and so it’s more sensitive to HP changes. We calc’d between that with comparisons of 76 to tiger. Somewhat matched it with some subjective thought to. Because while you might be developing and figuring out a damage calculator, we’ve had a public one working for a while now and has been tested many times in the public eye. Held true without needing a tweak every time. You can check it out, I can’t remember where it was posted and am writing this on a phone so I’m not really able to go and find it quickly.

[Wolf]

Those of you who have problems with ingame texts, try to join current beta - it is currently compatible with non-beta version so you should be able to play with others.