Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

Make Shermans 75mm being able to penetrate Pz4 and Stugs, with default AP rounds plsplspls. Make it more expensive, whatever, they are just must be on the same tier, at least with stug

Black Panther wrote:Make Shermans 75mm being able to penetrate Pz4 and Stugs, with default AP rounds plsplspls. Make it more expensive, whatever, they are just must be on the same tier, at least with stug

there is a vast difference between the Tank IV types. In game there are versions that had 50 mm armor and that could get pened by 75 mm shermans, but those with 80 mm were a different story.

EDIT@Markr:

I just checked corsix. It seems that you forgot the change on the Jagdpanzer IV/48 from PE. Still uses Hetzer TT and modifier. You have changed JP_IV_late, JP_IV and JP_IV_early and gave all of them JP_IV_70 armor. But only "JP_IV_late and JP_IV_48 is used in ebps. The other two in ebps are not used.

So PE IV/48 seems to use the old armor afterall.

Another issue seems to be that Hetzer now has better resistance vs 76 mm guns than the normal Jagdpanzer IV/48 and between those with L/48 and those with L/70 is now a huge armor difference.

Again. PE and CW are not being updated right now. Prob not for another two or more patches

Tank Destroyer Changes
- Changed Jagdpanzer IV L48 armor type to "tp_armour_axis_jagdpanzeriv" (from Hetzer type)
- Removed Received Accuracy and Received Penetration modifiers from Jagdpanzer IV L48
- Changed Jagdpanzer IV L70(A) armor type to "tp_armour_axis_jagdpanzeriv_l70" (from Hetzer type)
- Removed Received Accuracy and Received Penetration modifiers from Jagdpanzer IV L70

The Axis tank destroyers always had unusual and disorganized properties. Most of these changes are clean up but naturally have some slight performance impacts. Please test the general durability and viability of the tank destroyers post these changes. It is a net slight nerf, but should not be significantly noticeable. These changes will most likely impact PE down the road.

It was not mentioned as "WH only change". So i thought its a general fix.

Jagdpanzer IV L/48 and Jagdpanzer IV L/70(V) should to have equal armor (only gun is a big different). Why in-game L/48 is slightly weaker armored than L/70(V) ?
Jagdpanzer IV L/70(A) may to be slightly weaker armored because a hull is another.

According to data on Wardrawings the L70 versions had on some parts more armor (up to +20mm) so I would presume they were not identical.
Also, from gameplay point of view, isn't it better if the L48 and L70 differ in other things than just gun? If there is just better gun and slightly higher cost, people will just use the L70 because the L48 will be obsolete.

According to data of Yuri Pasholok, only early Jg.Pz IV L/48 get 60-mm armor of hull. Starting from ~summer production (s/n 320301), Jg.Pz IV L/48 have 80-mm armor of hull.

В мае 1944 года удалось построить 90 машин, обозначавшихся к тому времени как Panzerjäger IV (сквозной номер Sd.Kfz.162). К весне 1944 года стало ясно, что лобовой брони толщиной 60 мм уже недостаточно. Толщину листов увеличили до 80 мм. Корпуса с усиленным бронированием получили машины, начиная с имевшей серийный номер 320301. Одновременно с этим был увеличен диаметр крышки, прикрывавшей амбразуру пулемёта. Боевая масса САУ немного выросла.

https://warspot.ru/11786-luchshiy-stug
P.S. Yes, all Jg.Pz IV L/70(V) get 80-mm armor of hull. But thick armor and heavy 75-mm L/70 have created big problems with front pairs of road wheels. L/48 was a limit gun for Jg.Pz IV without big problems with weight and front pairs of road wheels.
https://warspot.ru/12584-slishkom-dlinnyy-stvol

OK, so L48 JPIVs with weaker armor existed. Those are the ones we have in BK.

Guys, I've played War Thunder alot and I've become an expert in tank warfare. Please, buff shermans 75mm, as those things were pretty much wrecking my vehicles alot.

Played versus bot, with heavily spamming of rifles.
What I can see: crew members, snipers, volks with MP-40 on distance is really being hard to be killed right now.
Changing distance of fighting was a nerf, previously making rifles more expensive makes it nerf x2.

Rangers are only available for infantry doctrine for 4CP, those rifles with bad accuracy the only standart battle unit available for each doctrine now.
Meeh

Okay guys... do you realize how small the rifle changes actually are? Here’s some perspective. The effective difference in damage per second for the garand at far range (ONLY far range) is less than 1.5 per second. This means effectively, for one garand to kill one basic inf it takes around two seconds longer than before on average. If you think this is a really really big difference... then it should be almost equally if not more enraging that k98s on average needed 5 seconds to kill one rifleman at short/point blank range, whereas garands killed two volks at close range within the same 5 seconds. For additional point of reference, a grenade cooldown is around 15 seconds. What does this mean? It means a rifle squad can basically walk up with no cover to a green cover volks and chuck a grenade, maybe even two depending on veteran you, to make up for the very few losses that they would take from k98s. Meanwhile a volks would NOT be able to even get close to rifles and get a grenade off except in situations where cover along the advance path allows it.

It’s okay for WM to start playing for defense, I’m pretty ok with this gameplay. For offensive axis we have PE

replay vs figree

Black Panther wrote:Played versus bot, with heavily spamming of rifles.
What I can see: crew members, snipers, volks with MP-40 on distance is really being hard to be killed right now.
Changing distance of fighting was a nerf, previously making rifles more expensive makes it nerf x2.

my sayings. We have got "semi automatic sub machine guns" for US again. It just sucks. I mean idk where these calutlations come from an pls. Make a calculation pls where you compare mp40 ranged combat damage per second vs M1 Garand. Due to time shortages and pc that isnt working properly atm i only managed to have some sort of "damage dealing" tests vs bots.

But what i tested was Volks in green cover vs hordes of bot rifle spam and then same with Garands. The Grens shred dozens of soldiers in short times as if i stationed a HMG42 there. And my Garands, even double in numbers, couldnt hold a spam of volks. Those just walked into range, light over only and shredding my Rifles behind green cover. Even my Volks in a test killed more enemies in ranged combat with MP40 than as my rifles did with Garands. Having grease guns was just as well as using Garands for ranged fight.

kwok wrote:Okay guys... do you realize how small the rifle changes actually are? Here’s some perspective. The effective difference in damage per second for the garand at far range (ONLY far range) is less than 1.5 per second. This means effectively, for one garand to kill one basic inf it takes around two seconds longer than before on average. If you think this is a really really big difference... then it should be almost equally if not more enraging that k98s on average needed 5 seconds to kill one rifleman at short/point blank range, whereas garands killed two volks at close range within the same 5 seconds. For additional point of reference, a grenade cooldown is around 15 seconds. What does this mean? It means a rifle squad can basically walk up with no cover to a green cover volks and chuck a grenade, maybe even two depending on veteran you, to make up for the very few losses that they would take from k98s. Meanwhile a volks would NOT be able to even get close to rifles and get a grenade off except in situations where cover along the advance path allows it.

Do you realize that there is some form of asymetric balance?



Also you are trying to mirror kowk, right? Nice! lets check the dps for jeep and schwimm, lmgs and so on. When a german bike catches a inf squad off guard or during cover change, half HP is sometimes drain and kills scored. But a jeep leaves enough time to jump into the next bush before dealing any serious damage. Same for lmgs equiped units. Its this first bunch of damage, the initial damage, that often decides the battle.

So since you start trying to mirror things, then pls mirror upgrades (axis are used to get better equipemnt with all their lmg42 and stgs... they are vastly more cost effective), mirror upkeep and reinforce cost, mirror mortar availability (81 mm). But dont start mirroring rifles for "balance reason" when everything else is in favour of axis (bike MG, upgrades, upkeek, reinforce, mortar, Grens as non-doc elite inf). Rifle have to stay somewhere between Volks and Grens in terms of performance due to the mentioned reasons. This is called asymetric balance and we all got used to it. And Germans are better in making a comeback out of a defensive position in general, so it was not an issue to take an defensive stance early on bc you can easily rely on pumas and stugs.


Also these calculations do not match with anything ive seen. Neither in test games nor in uploaded replays. Make a calculation pls where you compare mp40 ranged combat damage per second vs M1 Garand. Due to time shortages and pc that isnt working properly atm i only managed to have some sort of "damage dealing" tests vs bots. But doesnt matter or? When my Volks can hold of hordes of bot-rifles with K98, but my Rifles get the ass beaten up every time, even from superior position, than something is wrong.What i tested was Volks in green cover vs hordes of bot rifle spam and then same with Garands. The Volksgrens shred dozens of soldiers in short times as if i stationed a HMG42 there. And my Garands, even double in numbers, couldnt hold off a spam of volks. Those just walked into range, light over only and shredding my Rifles behind green cover. Even my Volks in a test killed more enemies in ranged combat with MP40 than my rifles did with Garands. Having grease guns was just as well as using Garands for ranged fight.

I can remember as you were lobbying for buff of Garands and. 50cals. I can imagine your replies if, after introducing those changes, someone wrote here "I tested .50cal against bots and now all vehicles with .50cals are OP, pls revert it back!" you would be the first one to say here that "tests against AI don't reflect PvP situations" and now you keep saying here that your experience from AI games don't reflect what kwok writes.
We have feedback from PvP beta games (S - plural, so not one game) where people who played as both US and WM reported that the neither US nor WM felt too OP or weak on their infantry play.
I don't know how long your PC is gonna be down but if needed, these changes can be reverted pretty much any time so could you postpone further comments on this topic until you can provide few replays which will demonstrate in praxis what you say?
So far you keep repeating the same stuff in your posts and we keep replying with the same stuff. We're not gonna change the stats back unless we have enough replays to prove there is something as critically wrong as you claim. So any more comments to this topic from your side, unless backed up with replay, are pointless as well as any more replies from us to you.

I am not mirroring kwok, I am kwok. And the calcs are easier than you think. I wasn’t responding to you though Warhawks, but to boba. I have yet to watch his replay though so I’ll do that when I’m home.

And yes what markr said. if you want us to do calcs for you then play a pvp game. Otherwise you can do it yourself on the calculator I provided publicly already.


EDIT:
Say hello to our new VIP members. This was a 2.5 hour long game.

Not interested in watching noob game, sorry

for some reason i can't see the game you uploaded. are you usre you uploaded the correct one that's the beta version?

kwok wrote:for some reason i can't see the game you uploaded. are you usre you uploaded the correct one that's the beta version?

yes I am sure, strange tho

Rename and reupload it

done

Black Panther wrote:

kwok wrote:for some reason i can't see the game you uploaded. are you usre you uploaded the correct one that's the beta version?

yes I am sure, strange tho

Was it played on a workshop map? If yes, then nothing is strange.

Haven't had any chance to test this version of the beta yet and that's also why i haven't provided any feedback yet.
Though, I was looking for some replays to watch meanwhile...
And oh; apparently that's my first post here since a while, good to see everyone is still alive :p

Tiger1996 wrote:

Black Panther wrote:

kwok wrote:for some reason i can't see the game you uploaded. are you usre you uploaded the correct one that's the beta version?

yes I am sure, strange tho

Was it played on a workshop map? If yes, then nothing is strange.

Haven't had any chance to test this version of the beta yet and that's also why i haven't provided any feedback yet.
Though, I was looking for some replays to watch meanwhile...
And oh; apparently that's my first post here since a while, good to see everyone is still alive :p

That was your revisioned map, 2v2 version of it. Neville, I think?

Well, replay files don't work for any workshop maps so far.
So, when you play BETA games... Try to pick normal maps in order to share the playback files.

Any ETA on new doctrine?

Tho, I played few pvp games on beta, I can say it's pretty much unnoticable change now, despite grenadiers vs riflemen combat ofc.
Captain's riflemen were deleted, while WM can now proceed to T2 and have access to Grenadiers right away, which can be abused...