Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

Warhawks97 wrote:Well, i think the current unlock line in armor doc does make sense. The standard sherman does not require CP´s so now you dont need to unlock 76 first before using 75 mm sherman mass-production. As long as there is a default unit affected, mass-productions can stay independent.

Alright, good point there... i admit how i overlooked this one, so Armor doc is probably fine after all.

Warhawks97 wrote:For Bk doc its indeed a bit weird. Before beta the mass production dropped the cost of tank IV D and Ostwind, now both are gone and Tank III is probably not affected.

But still, i would keep the H version earlier available over the J. Simply bc why else would anyone use H when one can just spam J right away.

Pz4 Ausf.j before the mass production unlock would cost same as in TH doc, so it's not going to be cheap right away.. it will only get cheaper after the mass production unlock too.

Warhawks97 wrote:I can imagine now that BK doc would have Tank IV F2, Tank III N and Stug III in their default arsenal.

Oh and yes, i like the idea of adding Pz4 F2 (or G) as well as keeping Stug3 as default units in Blitz doc... Let's see how the devs would manage this entire Pz4/Stug discussion for Blitz doc in the upcoming updates.

@kwok
I see what you mean.. well, i'm also hyped to see what other doctrines are ought to bring, you also asked me on Discord to provide my ideas about TH doc... I will do that here soon.

Tiger1996 wrote:
But still, i would keep the H version earlier available over the J. Simply bc why else would anyone use H when one can just spam J right away.

Pz4 Ausf.j before the mass production unlock would cost same as in TH doc, so it's not going to be cheap right away.. it will only get cheaper after the mass production unlock too.[/quote]


Lets see how TH doc works out at the end. Lets see if the J stays, if it will be afterall a "TH" doc when the approach is to make docs more all-round. A so specialized doc as TH wouldnt find its place there.


As for the tank IV H and J i think we have different ideas. For you J is worse and cheaper and thus has to come earlier. I say it the other way arround. You first start with quaility (H) untill this quality isnt enough anymore. Then you proceed to even better quality (Panther) while former quality (Tank IV H ) turns into quantity (Tank IV J). So you dont go the typicall from "bad" to "good" way, instead the "bad" can replace the "good" in the long run when the "good" isnt good enough anymore and turned into meatshields.
Also, as said, the J is already the cheapest kind of Tank IV ever build, how to make it even cheaper?

@kwok
I see what you mean.. well, i'm also hyped to see what other doctrines are ought to bring, you also asked me on Discord to provide my ideas about TH doc... I will do that here soon.

I guess TH becomes some sort of mechanized/Elite Tank division/Heavy assault doctrine. Perhaps even going as far as to get Panther G, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, Panther G as well as Wespe artillery. units that are too slow and from too defensive nature (Jagdpanzer IV/70) perhaps removed/swapped towards SE doc while maintaining the heavy attack stuff. Any sort of mass-production unlock would be removed and the doc far less pure TD spam anymore that locks down the entire game into arty party.

Warhawks97 wrote:Also, as said, the J is already the cheapest kind of Tank IV ever build, how to make it even cheaper?

I meant; before the mass production unlock.. Ausf.j would cost 550 MP/60 Fuel and then after the unlock, it would cost 410 MP/45 Fuel...
So, not cheaper right away.. but yes, there are many different ideas regarding Stug4/Pz4 in Blitz doc.

Regarding TH doc, i would probably add KT as reward to JT, and migrate captured Firefly Sherman from SE doc to TH doc as well.. more ideas later.

Tiger1996 wrote:

Warhawks97 wrote:Also, as said, the J is already the cheapest kind of Tank IV ever build, how to make it even cheaper?

I meant; before the mass production unlock.. Ausf.j would cost 550 MP/60 Fuel and then after the unlock, it would cost 410 MP/45 Fuel...
So, not cheaper right away.. but yes, there are many different ideas regarding Stug4/Pz4 in Blitz doc.

And thats what wouldnt make sense. The J version was the definition of Tank IV mass-production. It only existed for mass-production reasons, hence its logically that it is simply very cheap for late game usage and unlocked with mass-production.

And that should remain its role in BK, a cheap support for the Panthers rather than "early rush for" tank that gets spammed later on as well.

Regarding TH doc, i would probably add KT as reward to JT, and migrate captured Firefly Sherman from SE doc to TH doc as well.. more ideas later.

KT and JT are too different to be reward. I wouldnt go cumbersome JT if i had a KT to choose. It would consist of elite tanks with firepower and the option to strike quickly, hence Jagdpanther and Panther G would be the ideal units paired with Wespe artillery for quick arty support. Having one heavy battery ram like JT would be sufficient.

Would be interesting, if you had to pay for upgrade to be able deploy next series of Panzer tanks production, like, from G - upgrade to H - upgrade to J (much cheapier version than everything else) and each upgrade would cut access to the previous versions, to represent the reality.
Like, 50mp-20f for upgrade of series? Maybe same with Sherman 76mm upgrade, as it is already done with E8.

By the way, could Stug 3 get a smoke cost lower? Vehicle already got too much pressure of pay-to-activate abilities

In response to Warhawks suggestion about specific buffs for the 76 against certain armor types, if that's possible then that sounds ideal, I figured the buff would have to be to the base pen of the gun or something along those lines. Again, having looked at all the unlock tree arrangements, I think tiger's last one was the best so far for Blitz doc, the only thing that I think could be changed is leaving the mass production upgrade in the same spot but removing the link to the tank line. If a player wants to rush the weak pz4's like the F2(G? same thing i think) it shouldn't throw the game off too much, as 57mm guns should be able to deal with said tanks and light tanks have a reasonable chance of killing them with good micro without being screwed over by RNG as far as I can tell (at least the chaffee does, haven't tried the stuart).

Again, these are just suggestions for balance changes, I'm not sure how long it'd take to implement but the current beta isn't unplayable so if time is better spent working on the other doc reworks before ironing out these smaller issues, I'd prefer to see more doctrines playable within the new balance meta being made. (Brits and PE need work badly, terror and airborne would probably only need small changes and the groundwork is for the most part laid out for the other wehr and US docs)

@Tiger: Besides that there is the fact that J gets unlocked with upgraded production, means that cheaper H version comes after 7 CP. So you have a mass produced tank before actual mass-production.
So it all looks good.

@devs:

Description "errors".
1. In BK doc the upgraded production says that it unlocks also a battlegroup call in. Its basically the same description as it is for the battlegroup call in.
2. The call in still says that it provides either Stugs or Tank IV´s, not Tank III N.
3. Flakpanzer Gepard can be penetrated by cal 50 it says. Havent tested it but is it true? (I might just look at corsix)

I simply assume that description changes will be be made when docs are final.

Question at devs:
1. Will the buildings for WH get changed? We have war barracks that contains a tank with 80 mm armor (unlike the Tank IV D with its 30 mm which wasnt thicker than that of a Puma), A Tank factory that contains tanks and a heavy tank factory that contains heavier tanks but which is cheaper.
My point is:
Can we change the War Barracks into something similiar as in voch. It would contain Light armored vehicles and AT guns, usually all Halftracks and AT guns and Nebelwerfer.
The so called Tank factory be changed into "Assault armory". It would contain Tank III N, stug III, Puma vehicles and mechanized rocket arty and assault arty. The last building would be the Tank factory that contains all tanks from Tank IV´s with long barrel to heavy tanks and Tank destoryers.
Each building unlocked by each HQ upgrade, but each HQ upgrade doesnt require any building. Means you can jump over the second building if your focus is more on the offense, but for the duration of the tec up you are left vulnerable with nothing else as your starting units.

Ofc other factions would receive similiar flexibility.

2. The Tank Aces. Can we make them so that each can be called just once. Either for last stand, turn arround fight or finisher. Right now they are just too much of a "fuel bypass" in my opinion in long games or in games with big MP income. All non ace tanks would be produced in a normal way or consume a bit fuel to call in.


Else, good work. The more often i look at the BK tree, the more i like it. The AP round thing is still a thing but else its pretty, logical and the Blitzkrieg ability is put right in the center and not just a "final unlock".

If Terror and Def doc will look so organized, i would play them a lot more often.

CGarr wrote: F2(G? same thing i think) it shouldn't throw the game off too much, as 57mm guns should be able to deal with said tanks and light tanks have a reasonable chance of killing them with good micro without being screwed over by RNG as far as I can tell (at least the chaffee does, haven't tried the stuart).

the F2 was more an experiment with the long 75 mm L/43 gun with only 200 build but with still 50 mm armor. The G was the first real long barreld tank IV with 75 mm L/48. But i also got an extra armor plate increasing armor thickness to 80 mm. So the difference in reality was, that the US 75 mm could pen the 50 mm armor, but not the 80 mm. In game axis 50 mm armor is largely exaggerated with good chance to bounce even the 76 mm gun.

In game the Tank III N has the armor value (target type) of the overrated german 50 mm armor but still worse than the german (also overrated) 80 mm. So it shares the armor of Panzer IV F2 while it should have smiliar values to the Tank IV J.


In game you can adjust each weapon against each target which are the so called target tables. For tank IV we got three. Tank_IV_D, Tank_IV_and Tank_IV_skirts. The 50 mm Tank IV models share the same armor type as the 80 mm Tank Iv J, just the J has again a 20% reduced received pen modifier (which affects all weapons pointed at it). Adding skirts it changes to Tank IV skirts type but keeps the 20% received pen reduction.

That all makes tweaking stats for tank IV´s and III (which have no own target table) difficult and most of them have generally overrated armor with only the biggest (90 mm and 17 pdr) guns providing an effective counter to them.

Thats why i keep asking for an overhaul. Technically, with the removal of the Tank IV D with its own target table of 30 mm armor, we do have 3 target tables that could be used for the 50 mm armor versions, 80 mm armor versions and 80 mm+skirts versions. That would allow a lot more fine tuning.

Again, these are just suggestions for balance changes, I'm not sure how long it'd take to implement but the current beta isn't unplayable so if time is better spent working on the other doc reworks before ironing out these smaller issues, I'd prefer to see more doctrines playable within the new balance meta being made. (Brits and PE need work badly, terror and airborne would probably only need small changes and the groundwork is for the most part laid out for the other wehr and US docs)

The AB needs urgent rework in the support branch and the infantry branch.
The support branch is too much unlock for too little. The support branch should only unlock the spotters. The weapons they call in get unlocked by upgrading the base for the most part except supply drop and off map mortar strike. But HMG, mortar and AT gun drop in and stuff would be unlocked as soon as the base has been build up.
The inf needs flexibility and more type of unlocks to boost the inf over time, similiar to current RAF doc. And unlocks such as the command squad should not be required to unlock a boosts such as vet. So you either unlock more para units or you boost those you have on the ground already.
And perhaps more flexible air strikes. More different patroles similiar to luft doc.

i think 8 command point for priest in infantry doctrine is too much.....and 5 command points for jumbo is too little......

how about to swap 1 command point from priest unlock to jumbo unlock? so priest will need 7 points and jumbo or jackson will need 6 points......also, increase fuel cost for jumbo to be 100 fuel or more, and reduce price of jackson a bit.

To answer warhawk’s direct question: maybe. A lot is being experimented.

About the AT guns and their aim time...

I think their 4 second aim time was fine, so there was no need to change... However, if you really want to give AT guns a bigger chance, i would have rather made them harder to hit.. for some reason in Bk Mod, tanks have 200% chance of hitting AT guns with regular AP rounds.. so, practically, hitting AT guns with tanks is somehow easier than scoring hits on other enemy tanks, despite that AT guns are very small in size.. only HE rounds should keep good accuracy against AT guns because HE rounds don't have much range and always cost ammo.

Bottom line is; i would suggest to keep the aim time at 4 seconds for AT guns, and I also think the new tear-down times are fine.. but then, reduce the accuracy of regular AP rounds in return by at least 125% so tanks shouldn't have more than 75% hit chance with AP rounds against AT guns.

The 100 ammo rocket shot for the 50 mm AT gun became rather useless. Before shooting the crew has to "pack up" up the gun which no takes very long. The target has to stay in range and arc for a very long time.

I would shorten he pack up time for medium an light AT again a bit.


Another thing about AT guns is that they should have a decent rathe of fire. The mediums arround the 3-7-4.7 sec reload like the german 50 mm current is, the heavys roughly 4-5,5 secs (depending on vet perhaps).
So AT guns are cumbersome and slow and far less mobile than guns on vehicles, but in return they could unleash a high rate of fire as their crew is not restricted in working space.

Yeah, that pack-up cooldown is too huge now, already told that to Kwok. It should be compensated with increased ROF or anything else.
I have few suggestion also, regarding 57mm US at gun.
Right now it is extremely useless in any kind of situations. It often misses armored cars and hardly can penetrate stugs and panzers with skirts on. So it is like current 76mm, that can’t deal with same tier opponents.
So, there is a suggestion, why not to add ROF ability for for vet1 or via WSC upgrade, that would cost 50 ammo for activation, if you guys won’t ofc think about Hawks idea of increasing global rof.

And another one suggestion.
Hellcat is right now in worse position than M10. Much more less HP, means if vehicle loose in first shot from ambush (not pen/miss), same tier vehicles will 100% one shot it in return, while M10 can afford itself for trading shots due increased HP.
Hellcat also don’t have a HEAT and lost its sprint ability, making this vehicle a big risk to deploy.
So, there could be some options.
Bring back speedcar speed as ability.
Same ability, but through access of buying engine upgrade first (to make player choose carefully of upgrades, because of the ammo pressure)
HEAT rounds, same as M10?

Also, I have a question. Is puma still having evading bonus? And, if 57mm US at could be somehow more fragile faster, than it’s counter part?

Black Panther wrote:
And another one suggestion.
Hellcat is right now in worse position than M10. Much more less HP, means if vehicle loose in first shot from ambush (not pen/miss), same tier vehicles will 100% one shot it in return, while M10 can afford itself for trading shots due increased HP.

That issue is related also to the poor performance of the 76 mm guns. With ambush bonus your chance to pen a tank IV H is 62,1% at max range. If the basic pen chance would be upped to just 60%, then ambush would end in much more reliable 75% pen chance vs Tank IV H and J with skirts.

Also, I have a question. Is puma still having evading bonus? And, if 57mm US at could be somehow more fragile faster, than it’s counter part?

Puma is nearly impossible to hit with tank guns. In the past it was the same for AT gun but that got fixed. The only reliable way for me to protect my tanks against pumas with 75 mm Pak 40 has been the 57mm AT HT. The tanks just keep missing.
A not moving Puma is has hard to hit as a moving greyhound. And when it drives it becomes a nightmare hitting it with tank guns.

Teardown time was introduced to prevent the pick up and insta reload bug. The original fix to that was introducing aimtime, which made 57mm and 50mms at guns more or less useless because their intended counters (light armor, armored cars, etc) would be able to charge through the AT gun's firing arc and the AT gun would never be able to get a shot off.

Further adjustments to AT guns and aimtimes can/will be made based on balancing needs, the introduction of the teardown time was to make sure that it even WORKED as a fix to the insta reload exploit.

kwok wrote:Teardown time was introduced to prevent the pick up and insta reload bug. The original fix to that was introducing aimtime, which made 57mm and 50mms at guns more or less useless because their intended counters (light armor, armored cars, etc) would be able to charge through the AT gun's firing arc and the AT gun would never be able to get a shot off. Further adjustments to AT guns and aimtimes can/will be made based on balancing needs, the introduction of the teardown time was to make sure that it even WORKED as a fix to the insta reload exploit.[/

What you call a "fix" should have been the normal. Weapons that cause lots of damage with one shot and with high accuracy should have at least 1-3 seconds of aim time. I count to these weapons -that deliver more or less guranteed high damage with the first shot- AT guns, tank guns and snipers.

Furthermore its not as easy to rush through the fire arc anymore since the changes to their speed was introduced. And with the changed turret speeds on 20 mm cars and staghound it also became less dangerous to your overall defense since they cant turn the turret in a second anymore to shred your AT gun and are perhaps forced to rush back to friendly lines without shredding half your army anymore. So the wild rides of vehicles are less common as we were used to in the past prior even to aim time introduction.

What you did with this change is basically killing light and medium AT guns since their strenght was mobility. It became even easier to flank and overrun them as you cant even make them turn to the sides to adjust the fire arc. In short, aim times but shorter teardown times is better to prevent getting overruned by vehicles than no aim time but huge teardown times.

So keep the aim times, keep perhaps the teardown times for heavy AT guns bc they were heavy as fuck but light and medium AT should have shorter teardown times or else they have lost their value.

Here's a replay of pumas driving right past 57mm AT guns consistently, not one of the 10ish i sent through died. This is on the regular patch. Note this was POST speed changes and PRE teardown fix.

On the beta, light vehicles definitely haven't gone away. I'd have more replays showing gameplay but the versions on my machine are so messed up from all the different test games I've done. You can probably find some from other players. At least now though AT guns actually get shots off versus never shooting at all.

Fundamentally, we don't believe the strength of AT guns should be their mobility but positioning. Realistically/historically, mobility wasn't their strength. Positioning was where they got the most bang for their buck. If you have some foresight as to where to put your AT guns and backing them up when you think you're about to be over run, then you should be fine.

That being said the smaller AT guns don't have teardown times to keep their "mobility". I think in this patch though we might have accidentally added it to the WM 37mm when it should be like the US version which doesn't have a teardown (intentional).

Btw, the tear down time = original aim time minus current aim time (that’s how we determined), so if the tear down time is reduced so must increase the aim time to maintain the integrity of the unit from being exploitable to shorten total “time to next shot”. So it’s strange how you would think tear down time is too long and the previous aim time is fine when effectively they are the same time. If you’re repositioning an AT gun in response to an incoming vehicle and the tear down time is too long, it would’ve been too late in the old patch too

kwok wrote:Here's a replay of pumas driving right past 57mm AT guns consistently, not one of the 10ish i sent through died. This is on the regular patch. Note this was POST speed changes and PRE teardown fix.

1. The first shot at min 5. The reason why you then caused so much havoc was bc of the fast turret rotation still in place.
2. Second shot a few sec later the same.
3. Third was on the street so you vehicle is just very fast. Also Bad could saw the vehicle late which allowed you to get relatively close before the gun started to shoot. Also you knew where the guns where and you could accelerate to full throttle before getting into AT guns range. And in this third attempt a gunner was shot by a lucky hit which prevented the gun to fire before the third guy took his position. That was possible bc the gun wasnt ambushed.
4. This attemt was like the previous one. No ambush and crew got shot outright.
5/6. Only one gun had a fire arc but at the very edge only.
.... he never ever used camo and you always knew where the guns were, coming in with top speed often at the edge of the fire arc.

Before i continue watching:

Taking into acc the defenses should be hidden somtimes and unknown to your opponent, assuming that AT guns are backed by friendly vehicles and taking into acc the changes to turret speed, these scenarios would not happen that often. And if the player leaves an AT gun un-guarded, unambushed, having bad visibility and making other mistakes, he shoudlnt get "rewarded" by the Jedi like AT gun crew members.




I want to to keep an aim time of at least a sec or so in order to have some room for surprise attacks, comming out of the fog of war and surprising the gunners. I dont want gunners with light speed reflex which shoot and hit before the barrel is even pointing at the target. Having proper positioning and view should be rewared rather than having gunners that react to everything with light speed.


Another solution could be that AT guns have reduced ready aim time when they are in ambush. Like reflecting the gunners readiness to fire and caution to emerging threats with hands at the trigger.


But i wouldnt want to get rid of aim times for the sake for surprise attacks, making use of speed (what would be the advantage of a faster agile unit over a more cumbersome?) and bad enemie reconassaince work.

On the beta, light vehicles definitely haven't gone away. I'd have more replays showing gameplay but the versions on my machine are so messed up from all the different test games I've done. You can probably find some from other players. At least now though AT guns actually get shots off versus never shooting at all.

depends against which faction you play.

Fundamentally, we don't believe the strength of AT guns should be their mobility but positioning. Realistically/historically, mobility wasn't their strength. Positioning was where they got the most bang for their buck. If you have some foresight as to where to put your AT guns and backing them up when you think you're about to be over run, then you should be fine.

depends on size. Many wehrmacht soldiers prefered lighter AT simply bc they could push them quickly at the corner where its needed.

From that point of view, alll heavy AT guns like the US 76 and CW 17 pdr and pak 43 would only be available as emplacments bc they weight up to 5 tons. Not even 5 men could push them really well if at all. I wouldnt even mind if that would be the case.

I think you're missing the point. It's not the fact that the puma can kill the AT gun quickly, it's that the AT gun is effectively useless. Having a slower turret rotation does let the AT gun kill the puma any better. The AT gun doesn't deter let alone kill vehicles in this game. This is the issue we are attempting to solve.

Camo doesn't improve aim time btw, so it doesn't matter if it's in ambush or not, the Puma can still roll past AT.

Warhawks97 wrote:Taking into acc the defenses should be hidden somtimes and unknown to your opponent, assuming that AT guns are backed by friendly vehicles and taking into acc the changes to turret speed, these scenarios would not happen that often. And if the player leaves an AT gun un-guarded, unambushed, having bad visibility and making other mistakes, he shoudlnt get "rewarded" by the Jedi like AT gun crew members.

You say all these things but given all of it, the 57mm is never used. There is a reason for this.

Warhawks97 wrote:depends against which faction you play.

There are only 2 factions on the beta.


Again we can adjust the difference between teardown vs aimtime. the formula is basically reload time = tear down + aim time at minimum. I would say it would need to be reload time < tear down + aim time to punish mispositioning and exploiting. Otherwise between aim time and tear down it doesn't matter THAT much, but the AT gun needs to at least be able to DO what it's made to DO and thats "anti the tanks".

kwok wrote:I think you're missing the point. It's not the fact that the puma can kill the AT gun quickly, it's that the AT gun is effectively useless. Having a slower turret rotation does let the AT gun kill the puma any better. The AT gun doesn't deter let alone kill vehicles in this game. This is the issue we are attempting to solve.

Dancing arround and causing havoc after bypassing the AT gun is/was a turret rotation speed issue, else you would bypass a gun but do little damage to anything bc you can make use of it. Thats why Puma/staghound was always so much more deadly than greyhound. Its even more true when units next to AT gun (vehicles/rifle nades/zook/faust) can kill any bypassing vehicle.

Camo doesn't improve aim time btw, so it doesn't matter if it's in ambush or not, the Puma can still roll past AT.

I said that could be added.

You say all these things but given all of it, the 57mm is never used. There is a reason for this.

this is not true. I see it (since buff vs tank IV´s and stugs) sometimes even more often than the 76 mm AT gun. And the reason was that it was more mobile than the 76mm AT gun. Right now you have more or less killed this advantage.

The next reason why this gun is used is bc it can hit Pumas unlike tanks. For me the 57 mm is a great thing bc it shoots faster than 76 mm (even though slower than axis 75 mm), is more mobile and can be easily parked behind my tanks to offer protection against marder vehicles, Pumas and other light stuff with a big gun. Meanwhile my main heavy AT was the m10 bc its more mobile than the 76 mm AT. If you like mobility, the 57 mm is key.

There are only 2 factions on the beta.

I mean when you play vs factions with AT rifles, you use far less vehicles bc you cant really "suprirse" them or outmaneuver them.

Again we can adjust the difference between teardown vs aimtime. the formula is basically reload time = tear down + aim time at minimum. I would say it would need to be reload time < tear down + aim time to punish mispositioning and exploiting. Otherwise between aim time and tear down it doesn't matter THAT much, but the AT gun needs to at least be able to DO what it's made to DO and thats "anti the tanks".

The only thing i want is that aim times wont get thrown away entirely. Bc that would be a huge benefit for those that use AT guns with bad spotting.

Also having long teardown times makes vehicles in general more deadly bc you spend endless ammount of time just to slightly turn your AT gun. You may make the fire arc a total denial insta death zone for vehicles, but generally decreasing their ability to react to threats coming from other directions.


I dont care at the end how long tear down or aim time is, just i care that there is at least a second of aim time. And perhaps a modifier can be added to shorten aim times when in ambush for AT guns so that un-ambushed AT guns are "less prepared".

Warhawks97 wrote:The only thing i want is that aim times wont get thrown away entirely. Bc that would be a huge benefit for those that use AT guns with bad spotting.

Also having long teardown times makes vehicles in general more deadly bc you spend endless ammount of time just to slightly turn your AT gun. You may make the fire arc a total denial insta death zone for vehicles, but generally decreasing their ability to react to threats coming from other directions.


I dont care at the end how long tear down or aim time is, just i care that there is at least a second of aim time. And perhaps a modifier can be added to shorten aim times when in ambush for AT guns so that un-ambushed AT guns are "less prepared".

Okay, I think we agree then. For right now, there is an aimtime of 1-2s on all AT guns. It could be updated per AT gun is my thought, but for now we are more or less checking that the AT gun teardown fix is unexploitable by having much lower aimtimes than before (from 6 seconds to 2 seconds) that way we can differentiate if the delay in shooting was due to aim time or tear down (or set up. we tried that too but that didn't work for some reason. set up time apparently only works for HMGs. Very annoying.)

When the tear down time is 3 seconds, ready aim time 1-2 seconds then everything would be fine and no possible bug abuse possible bc the standard reload time would be faster anyway.


Another thing i would want to ask is if we can add that self repair thing which shermans and Pershings have to the TD´s as well. And also to units like stuart which would perhaps repair itself a bit faster from the beginning.

I am also having that idea in mind that the combat engineers could build some sort of an forward "engineers Headquarter" where you can recruit engineers and to which engineer units would retreat. It would add a more flexible engineer support rather recruting a captain always and a Halftrack. The captain is 50% wasted res bc you dont need its combat boost so much in most cases. Same goes for a forward HQ. Having a lets say roughly 175 MP forward engineers headquarter (either be build to which engins can retreat and possibly a "house version as alternative to a full HQ).
Would be an interessting thing.

If I remember right (can’t check right now) most the medium and bigger AT guns have reloads of like 6-8 seconds. So 3 second tear down and 2 second aim time is too short, based on past standards. This doesn’t have to be true, the reload time can be less, but as long as the teardown plus aim time is less than the reload it’s exploitable. Get a full table of tank guns/at guns with the aim time, tear down time, and reload times and we can discuss. It’s easy to say “less/more” but come down to the exact numbers needed is hard to determine and justify.

kwok wrote:If I remember right (can’t check right now) most the medium and bigger AT guns have reloads of like 6-8 seconds. So 3 second tear down and 2 second aim time is too short, based on past standards. This doesn’t have to be true, the reload time can be less, but as long as the teardown plus aim time is less than the reload it’s exploitable. Get a full table of tank guns/at guns with the aim time, tear down time, and reload times and we can discuss. It’s easy to say “less/more” but come down to the exact numbers needed is hard to determine and justify.

US:
76 mm AT gun reload time:
6-7 sec

57 mm:
5-5,5 sec

CW:
17 Pdr:
5-6 sec

6 pdr:
5-5,5 sec

Axis:
75 mm Pak 40:
4,28-5,45 sec

50 mm Pak 38:
3,7 - 4,7 sec



ready aim time is for all the same; 1,5-2 sec.

So nothing is above 6 seconds (except US). Generally, esspecially when tear down times get increased, i would generally say that mediums AT guns should be arround 3,7-5 sec in reload, heavies arround 4,5-5,5 seconds. The crews dont have to work in cramped compartments. Also if we take the M10 wolverine and achilles as comparision you will see that they also reload in 4,2 seconds, even faster from ambush (vets and tank commander). Units like Marder III and II are also 4,28-5,45 seconds and faster with ambush or stationary mode.

Is there going to be any change to the panzer 3 call in's armor? I've hade multiple games in the beta where it has bounced 76 shots and I'm not sure if that was intended. If it was, the heat shouldn't be free because i've seen a lot of people just blitz them at M10 and 76 armed shermans of various types.

CGarr wrote:Is there going to be any change to the panzer 3 call in's armor? I've hade multiple games in the beta where it has bounced 76 shots and I'm not sure if that was intended. If it was, the heat shouldn't be free because i've seen a lot of people just blitz them at M10 and 76 armed shermans of various types.

That tank uses Tank IV armor and Tank IV armor is most overrated armor in game. US 75 and even 76 guns have big issues penetrating them.

I am proposing various changes possible for fixing the tank IV armor for years now.