Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

[Kasbah]

I agree with Warhawks.
Inf should maybe not be totally shredded, but suffer a supression, something that will avoid taking those walks in front of tanks as if it was a promenade. Hell, a tank is supposed to have 2 mg's and a cannon! I insist. Just leave any squad in front of any medium tank, doing nothing, and count the seconds they need to be TOTALLY wiped out. Heavy tanks are a little bit better, but you will need also a lot of time until the WHOLE squad is dead.
I don't want to go to the other extreme and constantly micro infantry but sometimes I feel I have to micro expensive tanks to avoid frontal destruction/immobilization, whereas the infantry will retreat with almost no losses, reinforce, and start again.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

All shermans have insta pin ability, whats the problem? You are talking about nothing, because better tank mgs will mean that we ll need total inf cost rebalance, which is pointless, so just leave this question.

[Kasbah]

Pointless for you, maybe,not for me.

We didn't speak about inf cost, we speak about slightly increasing tank mg effectiveness/supression to avoid hit and run abusive tactic.

I'm fed up of having to constantly micro my tanks because the ennemy infantry can take a walk in front of any tank, without cover and throw any kind of shit to them. Now AT squads blow up any medium tank just running frontally under the fire of 2 mgs's and a cannon and severely damage many heavys before retreating, reinforcing for a ridiculous cost and start again.

Of course when I am the one doing this I am having a lot of fun but that doesn't mean it's fair. Even a pioneer flame squad can keep burning a Panzer IV for 7-8 seconds loosing only 2 guys.

[Warhawks97]

All shermans have insta pin ability, whats the problem? You are talking about nothing, because better tank mgs will mean that we ll need total inf cost rebalance, which is pointless, so just leave this question.

a Tank needs to pay all time 40 ammo to avoid being rushed by 4 men with AT weapons frontally.... Also why should coaxial MG´s be more or less only noise makers?

Beside that there are many units that have only coaxial (many TH´s, Tank IV F´s, Tiger early version, PantherD, Stuart Tanks and many other light armored vehicles or Puma with 50 mm canon, Pershings which get frequently rushed frontally without any real chance to defend themself against inf or simply the gunner f a tank gets killed). And if you have a closer look at it its even more unfair when a unit with just one MG like Marder I fights of inf while a Tank IV F with two MG´s cant do much against inf and thats just because one MG is coaxial and the other is top mounted not? And due to such things light recconassaince vehicles do kill inf better than Tanks that have "only" two coaxial. Beside that the axis coaxial had been more accurate for distant fight than the top mounted which was more close range defense. The gunsights inside axis tanks had been used for the turret coaxial MG as well (in TH´s for the normal coaxial) and adjustable for MG fire up to 1.200 meters.

These suppressive abilties should not be required all time just to stop 4-6 men that are rushing a tank. Also the suppressive fire reduces damage output to almost 0 so you pay 40 ammo just to pin the inf and to save the tank but the enemie inf has still no losses taken. Such suppressive fire abilites should more be a tactical option like covering the advance of your own inf by raining down bullets on enemie units and thus pushing enemie inf behind cover down so that friendly inf can get close to them with MPi´s or to stop a large scale inf assault.

[V13dweller]

The team behind Red Orchestra 2 spent over 3 months creating the Tank Interiors for their game, here is their impression of the Hull MG scope on a Panzer IV Ausf F2.

The only thing that is not realistic on the scope is the black ring around the outside, the lines from the reticule went all the way to the edge of the lens.

[MarKr]

We didn't speak about inf cost, we speak about slightly increasing tank mg effectiveness/supression to avoid hit and run abusive tactic.

You have to realize few things. This hit and run is usually used in combination with the "Sprint" abilit. Sprint makes the unit more resistant to supression. If you want to adjust the MGs to suppress AT squads, we would have to set the suppression so high that it would suppress even sprinting infantry and honestly they would insta-suppress any non-sprinting infantry (which is something people would rightfuly complain about).

Some time ago I had my version of BK and there coaxial and hull MGs had approximately same stats as infatry HMG teams, however they had lower range and severe nerfs against infantry in light and heavy cover (suppression reduced by 60 - 90%, damage down by 30 - 40% etc...). It shreded infantry without cover very fast while in cover infantry was relatively safe. However these changes made stickies/AT nades nearly impossible to use since even if in ambush, single recon squad reveals the camoed unit and tank starts firing (note that covers - especially light cover, get easily destroyed under sustained fire) and destroys cover and then shreds the infantry. When you want to move the infantry and you run in the open for a second, you get suppressed and killed quite fast. It is less of a problem later in game when maps are full of arty craters and infantry can most of the time run in light cover. However early game would be prety much a race to build the first tank (remember that even AT weapons are crewed by infantry).
Also coaxial MGs are even on light vehicles - Greyhound has one, Stuarts and Chaffees, Puma has one - that 20mm kwk "puma" has MG too (it shreds infantry already with another MG....oh my..), Stubby HTs have MGs too...
The bottom line is that with my experience I think that we'll be better off without buffing the MGs. Since if we buff them only a little the Sprint ability will still enable the hit and run and if it gets buffed to the point where it will be able to stop the hit and run, it will probably break the game balance.

[Warhawks97]

We didn't speak about inf cost, we speak about slightly increasing tank mg effectiveness/supression to avoid hit and run abusive tactic.

You have to realize few things. This hit and run is usually used in combination with the "Sprint" abilit. Sprint makes the unit more resistant to supression. If you want to adjust the MGs to suppress AT squads, we would have to set the suppression so high that it would suppress even sprinting infantry and honestly they would insta-suppress any non-sprinting infantry (which is something people would rightfuly complain about).

Some time ago I had my version of BK and there coaxial and hull MGs had approximately same stats as infatry HMG teams, however they had lower range and severe nerfs against infantry in light and heavy cover (suppression reduced by 60 - 90%, damage down by 30 - 40% etc...). It shreded infantry without cover very fast while in cover infantry was relatively safe. However these changes made stickies/AT nades nearly impossible to use since even if in ambush, single recon squad reveals the camoed unit and tank starts firing (note that covers - especially light cover, get easily destroyed under sustained fire) and destroys cover and then shreds the infantry. When you want to move the infantry and you run in the open for a second, you get suppressed and killed quite fast. It is less of a problem later in game when maps are full of arty craters and infantry can most of the time run in light cover. However early game would be prety much a race to build the first tank (remember that even AT weapons are crewed by infantry).
Also coaxial MGs are even on light vehicles - Greyhound has one, Stuarts and Chaffees, Puma has one - that 20mm kwk "puma" has MG too (it shreds infantry already with another MG....oh my..), Stubby HTs have MGs too...
The bottom line is that with my experience I think that we'll be better off without buffing the MGs. Since if we buff them only a little the Sprint ability will still enable the hit and run and if it gets buffed to the point where it will be able to stop the hit and run, it will probably break the game balance.

"against infantry in light and heavy cover (suppression reduced by 60 - 90%, damage down by 30 - 40% etc...)"

That sounds good. Buff coaxial MG´s but also buff cover values. And as you said in late game when map is full of crater inf has good chance to stay the line. In early... well they need some cover. I am also not talking to make coaxial like stationary HMGs but rather comparable to those of these light vehicles like schwimmwagen.

About sticky and AT nade.... Stickies arent worth to use except against Tanks like elephant and JT... Panthers are too fast usually anyway and against mediums its kinda waste to try to plant a sticky on them. AT nades are usefull to finish tanks or in urban combat or throwing over hedgrows when enemie isnt aware about that threat.


I do know that lots of vehicles would suddenly become a lot more dangerous like puma with 50 mm kwk or stuart but they are also pretty expensive for what they do only. At the other hand i do consider some inf units as overpriced anyway still or at least its very strange that inf squads (even when they are elites) cost more or as much as decent medium tanks already.


And as i said... we dont need to make them right like their HMG versions. Just a slight buff at first hand+ slight suppression values at in order to prevent frontal rushes bit range and/or accuracy decrease of hendheld at (i would favour some range decrease. Maybe the range of the tread breaker ability has currently).

[MarKr]

And as i said... we dont need to make them right like their HMG versions. Just a slight buff at first hand+ slight suppression values at in order to prevent frontal rushes.

Just what I said - if you buff the suppression just slightly, the sprint ability will still neglect the effect enough to sprint in range of AT weapon and fire it. Even if not - the supression builds up slower after an infantry unit had been suppressed (that's the case since like ... ever), however the infantry can still fire so even if you suppress them, they can still fire Schreck/zook whatever... so unless you kill them, they are still a threat. So just a "slight" buff won't solve the problem and "big" buff will cause the problems I talked about before.
Also keep in mind that M4 Sherma/ Stubby PIV/ Churchill (6pdr)... with HE mode become a pure nightmare for infantry since the HE tends to devaste natural cover on map and then the infantry is just f*cked unless you micro it all the time.

This situation is not as easy to solve as it might seem at the first look...

[Warhawks97]

well.... slight suppression is better than non as currently some inf squads hunting vehicles and tanks without top turret gunner across the map. + slight range decrease of hendheld AT squads and survivability of some vehicles and tanks would be increased as well as their overall effectivness (esspecially those without top turret mg).



@sukin: Yeah.. units like Panthers are one of just a few tanks (Tank IV J, Panther, Tiger late version) that can deal with inf by themself+ armor that often prevents zook to penetrate it. But so many other units have no top turret gunner and only two coaxial and thus often very helpless against infantry. You once said on teamspeak that the Terror Tiger is more or less "crap" compared to BK Tiger late version and thats just because of a missing top turret gunner. Maybe not the only reason but a very important reason why Terror player for example highly prefer the Panther instead the Tiger is the top turret gunner.


Also yeah, HE tanks can be a nighmare to infantry.... but regarding to that i am curious why i have deadly anti inf firepower when i have two tanks with top mounted mg42 killing even rangers so that i dont need any special HE tank whereas 3 76 and e8 shermans do somehow not kill a stormtooper squad vet 2 that isnt that far away shooting at it with 3 cal 50´s while those manage to damage one 76 critically before retreating the last 3 men after almost 10 seconds of heavy mg fire. I even think that this moment is uploaded in one replay here in forum. Top mounted MG42 are probably the only properly working MG´s on tanks here in BK.

[MarKr]

tbh I believe that Allies would profit the most from such changes since their light tanks (tetrarchs/stuarts/chaffees) would become quite infantry chewers while the only Axis light tank I can think of is Hotchkiss. Sure, Axis have many HTs whose MGs would benefit too but these light tanks are still somehow better than HTs - chaffee even has same gun as M4 Sherman...

[Devilfish]

I my opinion, the thing that ought to be changed is handheld AT weapons accuracy and most importantly aiming time. In the current state, it feels like this. Run towards armored object, hit sprint, watch poor, helpless vehicle trying to reverse, hit halt, bang. Unless there is wierd terrain or some obstacle it hits target like guided missile no matter if its moving or not. The guy with zook or schreck literally fire immediately after stopping, while in reality he needs to kneel, put the schreck on the shoulder, aim, estimate lead (if the target is moving), fire and pray the rocket goes where he wished to. Right now, schreck and zook has slightly worse range, no aim time and better accuracy then any tank.

Edit: The matter of the sprint ability, does unit performing sprint become more vulnerable to fire? Because that makes sense, since whole point of being suppressed is that you take cover on the ground, decreasing the chance of getting hit. So when an AT squad is sprinting towards a tank, on the one hand it should not get suppressed that easily, but on the other hand should actually DIE quicker, right?

[Warhawks97]

tbh I believe that Allies would profit the most from such changes since their light tanks (tetrarchs/stuarts/chaffees) would become quite infantry chewers while the only Axis light tank I can think of is Hotchkiss. Sure, Axis have many HTs whose MGs would benefit too but these light tanks are still somehow better than HTs - chaffee even has same gun as M4 Sherman...

the axis TH´s, yes..... tetrarch and stuart is not in use so..... The we have sdkfz 234 1/2/3 which have coaxial (idk about 3 if it is count as coaxial). Then some HT´s with 75 mm which may would get a profit of it. The the PE vehicles with 20 mm which also have a coaxial.... sooooo i am not sure..... on allied there would be daimler vehicle (?), tet (?) stuart and chaffe and greyhound and the stuarts. Also the mg42 coaxial would probably a bit stronger due to higher rof.


@devilfish: yes.... we had that in old forum. Accuracy, range and 0 aim time makes hendheld AT´s also perfect for this hit and run. And you are totally right.

In old forum we suggested stuff like: reduced range for hendheld AT and/or lower accuracy on max range, aim time, maybe some sprint penalties as those weapons had been a bit "bulky" or unhandly (for sprints). So we dont even need to buff coaxial over the top but also change some hendheld AT`s.

[MarKr]

tetrarch and stuart is not in use so

Because when you can field them, opponents already have AT guns and AT infantry which destroy them fast. If they get better MGs they will be able to last a little longer and it won't be that stupid idea to actually build them - and these light tanks are better than HTs...that's what I meant. ATM people rather wait a little longer and build M4 since it can soak up more damage than chaffee and has HE mode.

The we have sdkfz 234 1/2/3 which have coaxial (idk about 3 if it is count as coaxial). Then some HT´s with 75 mm which may would get a profit of it. The the PE vehicles with 20 mm which also have a coaxial.... sooooo i am not sure.....

Generally speaking the Axis vehicles can do quite the mess as it is, further buffs could have severe impact on balance.
I chose my words poorly - both sides would benefit from buffing MGs but from my point of view Axis vehicles need it less than Allies.

[lunarwolf]

We didn't speak about inf cost, we speak about slightly increasing tank mg effectiveness/supression to avoid hit and run abusive tactic.

You have to realize few things. This hit and run is usually used in combination with the "Sprint" abilit. Sprint makes the unit more resistant to supression. If you want to adjust the MGs to suppress AT squads, we would have to set the suppression so high that it would suppress even sprinting infantry and honestly they would insta-suppress any non-sprinting infantry (which is something people would rightfuly complain about).

so then just increase hull mg suppression in a cone in front of tank. that way this rubbish of infantry sprinting etc.. in front of tank would get punished and lose that squad for such crappy gameplay - since it's the front facing hull mg, it would force players to launch side and rear attacks if they don't want to lose their squad.

sorry but I have no compassion for anyone complaining about losing an infantry squad running in front of a tank. in fact I would go further and suggest that tanks can roll over infantry like they can vs 3 men mortar/mg teams

my 2 cents

[Wake]

V13dweller made a reference to Red Orchestra. I play that game too, and it very realistically portrays some of the same battles we do in Blitzkrieg (Darkest Hour mod on Western Front).

Red Orchestra offers a very similar take on this topic. When I'm in a tank in that game, and like in real life, I have a VERY limited field of view. The driver can only see to the front, and the commander is the only one with 360 degree view, but he is often occupied with other tasks. In that game, tanks are very deadly to infantry, there is a main gun and 2 MG's to cut them down if infantry come from the front.

But what Blitzkrieg cannot do because of the CoH engine is limit the tanks' field of view. In Red Orchestra, tanks get destroyed all the time from infantry that attack from the crews' blind spots. In most cases, when the tank is destroyed, the crew never saw who fired the bazooka or panzershreck.

This is why we can't accurately reflect infantry AT weapons in Blitzkrieg. Every time a player sees an AT squad come from the side or rear, he immediately starts turning his tank and reversing, whereas in real life the crew would never have seen the AT squad and would just have been sitting there.

Another thing that isn't accurately portrayed in Blitzkrieg is that in the game, tanks are almost always moving. They stop only to shoot, and usually for a few seconds at most. In real life and in Red Orchestra, tanks are almost always stationary. It's incredibly hard for the tank to aim when it is driving. Look at documentaries of tanks from the war, most of the time they are sitting still, making them very easy targets for AT squads. Usually, the only time a moving tank would be hit was in a city or urban environment, where it is very easy for infantry to get close to the tank.

[lunarwolf]

But what Blitzkrieg cannot do because of the CoH engine is limit the tanks' field of view. In Red Orchestra, tanks get destroyed all the time from infantry that attack from the crews' blind spots. In most cases, when the tank is destroyed, the crew never saw who fired the bazooka or panzershreck.

This is why we can't accurately reflect infantry AT weapons in Blitzkrieg. Every time a player sees an AT squad come from the side or rear, he immediately starts turning his tank and reversing, whereas in real life the crew would never have seen the AT squad and would just have been sitting there.

lol - the game engine camera "realistic" argument. the same can be said about an AT squad circling around bushes and buildings to flank a tank. if a player micro manages his tank and rotates it then that is smart play, however he would still be exposed on sides from other unit attacks as he rotates.

[Kasbah]

Well, I'm glad not to be the only one feeling there is a real issue on this matter.
For sure the engine is limited and this is something coming from vanilla I think, but there should be a compromise between having shredding mg's in tank equally effective as their manual mg counterparts and the actual situation where even doing nothing, so not sprinting, a normal squad (not to mention elite squads) can just stay in front of a tank under the fire of 2 mg's and a cannon for like (depending on the tank) 10-20 seconds without completely dying.

I really feel I have to micro my tanks and be frightened of any infantry coming, especially, it's obvious, AT squads. I do like the situation of increasing AT squads aiming time or accuracy, it's a very good point. But the real issue is the MG's in tanks. Markr, I understand your words and the difficulty of this issue, but is there no option to buff them somewhere between "slight" and "big"? Just "normal"? I'm no coder so maybe you could tell us which is on your opinion the quickest and yet effective solution for you and Wolf that kindly give your free time to let us enjoy this mod. It's getting every time better but this issue remains, it affects all factions and the core of the game.

[MarKr]

so then just increase hull mg suppression in a cone in front of tank. that way this rubbish of infantry sprinting etc.. in front of tank would get punished and lose that squad for such crappy gameplay - since it's the front facing hull mg, it would force players to launch side and rear attacks if they don't want to lose their squad.

But if the MGs get buffed in a way that even sprinting infantry will get suppressed then non-sprinting infantry will be suppressed super-fast.

Markr, I understand your words and the difficulty of this issue, but is there no option to buff them somewhere between "slight" and "big"? Just "normal"?

I'm not sure atm... The problem is that either we could make it useful against non-sprinting infantry but then spriting infantry would still be able to frontaly rush the tanks (so that solves nothing). OR we could make it effective against sprinting infantry and then it would be shreding non-sprinting infantry. I'm not sure what could be done with this right now without breaking the balance...

[lunarwolf]

But if the MGs get buffed in a way that even sprinting infantry will get suppressed then non-sprinting infantry will be suppressed super-fast.

I think both sprinting and non sprinting infantry should get supressed in front of tank, basically forcing the player to retreat or lose the squad

I am not a coder. but why can't just the hull mg be buffed?

the hull mg faces forward only. so infantry would not get supressed coming from side or rear. I am not asking to change current values for coaxial and turret mg, only buff the hull mg

[Warhawks97]

so then just increase hull mg suppression in a cone in front of tank. that way this rubbish of infantry sprinting etc.. in front of tank would get punished and lose that squad for such crappy gameplay - since it's the front facing hull mg, it would force players to launch side and rear attacks if they don't want to lose their squad.

But if the MGs get buffed in a way that even sprinting infantry will get suppressed then non-sprinting infantry will be suppressed super-fast.

And what would br wrong? I mean a group of soliders only walking over an field would probably instantly jumpt to ground when they hear the sound of an MG (or tank only that drives towards them) and bullets passing them right? So i wouldnt have a prob when non sprinting inf would be suppressed quite fast. Sprinting inf would maybe be less fast suppressed and thus able to run frontally to a tank before being suppressed but this combined with less range for hendheld AT´s would it make a way harder to engage a tank frontally + some aim time for hendheld AT weapons. So a squad wouldnt be instantly suppressed and a short sprint to another cover possible but still unable to get close enough to get into range and to make a shot before being suppressed. Maybe the cooldwons of sprints could be decreased by a bit so that infantry to "jump/sprint" better from cover to cover but simply frontal assaults would not be possible so far as then the squads would get suppressed before coming into range.

Markr, I understand your words and the difficulty of this issue, but is there no option to buff them somewhere between "slight" and "big"? Just "normal"?

I'm not sure atm... The problem is that either we could make it useful against non-sprinting infantry but then spriting infantry would still be able to frontaly rush the tanks (so that solves nothing). OR we could make it effective against sprinting infantry and then it would be shreding non-sprinting infantry. I'm not sure what could be done with this right now without breaking the balance...

same here actually. A non sprinting infantry on an open field that is suddenly catched of MG fire simply dies or gets suppressed. Also (unless its a hidden tankbuster that suddenly fires with his MG) a player can see vehicles usually and should usually should be able to make a decision whether to retreat or to run to the next cover or behind the next hedgrow.


about "blind spots" in tanks and the red orchestra thing: Hull gunner and other crew members had blind spots for sure but at the other hand tank commanders had a nice field of view with their copula and unlike players in red ochestra the tank commanders had always been in contact with their crew and those give orders to the drivers usually and thus can give order to turn the tank. Also in BK the top turret gunners (actually tank commanders) have a nice field of view and no real blind spots. Everything else (see units coming arround houses althoug there is no line of view) is simply missing true sight and affects all units and tactics (not only AT squad vs tank situations).



And i agree with everything above so far. Running frontally at a tank (or vehicle with many mgs) should simply be a stupid move and should be punished more (regardless if axis/alli tank/vehicle or inf or normal/elite inf). Thing simply is that its currently the opposite. If you dont manage to "run away" fast enough with your tank or vehicle the infantry will simply kill it or damage it heavily unless its a super heavy armored tank while mostly elite infs suffer often rather low losses.

[lunarwolf]

Sprinting inf would maybe be less fast suppressed and thus able to run frontally to a tank before being suppressed but this combined with less range for hendheld AT´s would it make a way harder to engage a tank frontally + some aim time for hendheld AT weapons.

this is exactly my point. you shouldn't be able to attack a tank frontally w/ infantry. they die or retreat. otherwise if you insist on attacking a tank from the front you need to have infantry garrison a building or trench. they are available so learn to use/build them. your loss if you choose not to. but relying on inf frontal attacks on tanks is not sound tactics

[Wolf]

I'd say its simply because of gameplay reasons, like it was already said, we have plenty of infantry doctrines. And while not attacking tanks frontally is very nice in theory, just by game / map / mechanics design, you can't really make it so that side/rear attack is always possible or viable. You would nerf infantry doctrines capability a lot.

Stubby/HE perma loaded tanks exist in this game to provide anti-inf capability to tanks which are primary AP loaded. What you are suggesting is again making non-anti inf tanks that good that they would not need such protection, which is not bad in theory, but it just doesn't work well in game/would take away additional skill required to maintain tank defense. Yes, there are definitely tanks which could get some buff on their mgs (especially hull mgs), but I don't think its global problem. Any buff would also create even bigger gap between normal and elite units.

With AT aim time I think we would again get to the situation when tank moves a bit and infantry has to move, just because it did not fire immediately, which is stupid enough in tank fights, and we would introduce this to inf-at vs tank fights. Again, sounds good in theory, is not that awesome in game.

About suppression / effectivity, MarKr said it quite right. I'd just add that if suppression would be too high, it would also affect not only units attacking the tank, but just every infantry unit in cone of fire, which would then result in retreat of said unit = much easier area denial by tanks and again significant nerf to inf based doctrines.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

+ 1 to wolf, no changes needed here.

[lunarwolf]

sorry but I don't agree w/ your point Wolf. I have been playing BK since it came out. the game was designed to make tanks/vehicles more realistic than vCoh, where cheap infantry could decimate more expensive tanks. also this mod placed emphasis on teamplay, where each member had a task/responsibility. thus infantry docs are meant to kill infantry/support and not tank hunting. for that you rely on the designated tank hunter on your team. infantry docs provide support with arty, emplacements and can hunt infantry, but to rely on infantry docs to hunt tanks is missing the point.

let's do the math; currently an AT squad costs about 360 MP, which is a fraction of the price of tanks, exp heavy ones, not to mention the additional fuel price, which is 150 minimum for axis panthers. a lot of maps are fuel deprived so u can't just pump out these units, and to lose them so easily vs 360MP is not balanced at all. as inf doc u need to use AT guns/emplacements, defensive structures like trenches, buildings or use smart tactics like FLANKING when using your troops vs tanks, otherwise let your teammate with that role do his job

anyway it's not balance breaking to increase hull MG suppression to stop inf attacking frontally. I don't buy that argument one bit.

my 2cents

[Wolf]

And now tell me, how many times that AT squad has to shoot to make any significant damage or destroy said expensive tank? And try ingame, survivability of US at squad vs said panther. And you dont read, I said "Yes, there are definitely tanks which could get some buff on their mgs (especially hull mgs)". I am just telling you, that buffing MGs suppresion doesn't mean that ONLY inf rushing the tank will be supressed and that FLANKING can not be done on many maps or just because there are other units, which should be there to protect your tank. And you can support your tank with many things to protect them from inf, like your own infantry / he loaded tanks.

Just to summarize this topic it was said that:
- AT guns are too cheap, and can destroy expensive tanks
- AT infantry can easily destroy heavy tanks
- 76mm guns are too easy to destroy heavy tanks

So again, what do you even want? You SERIOUSLY want ARTY and heavy tanks to be ONLY way to play against heavy tanks? Because flanking worked in vCoH just because everything did almost none damage, in BK you can't really flank most of the time. That rushing infantry you talk about is often also in yellow cover, and its bonuses are applied, so you want even cover to be ineffective... I think you just don't realize what are you asking. Yes, I agree that there are tanks that do VERY little damage to infantry in front of it with hull mg, I don't agree that turret MGs (.50 and alike) and certain coax mgs are ineffective. Its combination of factors - for example commander upgrades which give veterancy/suppression resistance, cover, abilities of certain units, that makes a difference. For defense you have units/abilities, which can wipe out squad with even one shot.

Tell me what would you want with this exactly? "it's not balance breaking to increase hull MG suppression to stop inf attacking frontally.". That means that either hull mg has to be set up that it will basically instapin, otherwise you can't guarantee that they will not fire even one shot. That also means, that any infantry unit which comes into cone of hull mg fire will be instapinned and will most likely have to retreat or use ability -> will again fire the AT. Units which don't have such ability are denied area with one tank. There is practically nothing we can do to prevent AT squad to fire and retreat other than ultrabuffing damage or suppression, but I hope that you now understand that it would have huge effect on any infantry unit.