Blitzkrieg Mod 4.9.0 Patch TEST

[Krieger Blitzer]

I actually mentioned a reason, that the heavy Storm grenade does have lower throwing range and is simply too much expensive to be used against any kind of single enemy inf squads.

Adding normal nades to them won't break the Allies or the balance anyhow, u know... It's just a kind of adding some more deserved flexibility, just like when to add flaming nades to the 101st AB units or sticky bombs to the infiltration Rangers.

It's a tiny subject and even nothing really that is worth any discussions I think

[6thAirborneDivision]

I was just talking to Belisar and he discussed with VFA a weird thing about axis weapons in allied hands and vice versa. It seems that allied weapons receive a buff when in axis hands and axis weapons getting nerfed when in allied hands. The issue is nearly verified for paks and schrecks. I am just curious if this is really the case because wouldn't it be kinda unfair for allies?

[Warhawks97]

I was just talking to Belisar and he discussed with VFA a weird thing about axis weapons in allied hands and vice versa. It seems that allied weapons receive a buff when in axis hands and axis weapons getting nerfed when in allied hands. The issue is nearly verified for paks and schrecks. I am just curious if this is really the case because wouldn't it be kinda unfair for allies?

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=691

[ShadowIchigo]

I was just talking to Belisar and he discussed with VFA a weird thing about axis weapons in allied hands and vice versa. It seems that allied weapons receive a buff when in axis hands and axis weapons getting nerfed when in allied hands. The issue is nearly verified for paks and schrecks. I am just curious if this is really the case because wouldn't it be kinda unfair for allies?

Not gonna lie, ive noticed this too, but mainly with german stolen paks

[Butterkeks]

I actually mentioned a reason, that the heavy Storm grenade does have lower throwing range and is simply too much expensive to be used against any kind of single enemy inf squads.

Adding normal nades to them won't break the Allies or the balance anyhow, u know... It's just a kind of adding some more deserved flexibility, just like when to add flaming nades to the 101st AB units or sticky bombs to the infiltration Rangers.

It's a tiny subject and even nothing really that is worth any discussions I think

Well it wouldn't "break" the balance, but remember: The demo squad is not made to fight enemy troops. It is made to fight enemy emplacements and buildings. GIving it normal nades would simply lead to another allrounder squad that can do anything instead of having a specialized unit. Atm they can crawl and kill any emplacement by just throwing a single nade bundle + they can be equipped with 4 STG44. So they need to have some kind of "weakness".

AB unit and infiltration Rangers are allround combat units, like Panzergrens (Schreck, lmg, Stg, sticky bombs etc.). AB units have flaming nades simply because of AB doc^^ Just like SE, Panzergrens wouldn't need flame nades, but SE has them, so they get them

[ShadowIchigo]

I actually mentioned a reason, that the heavy Storm grenade does have lower throwing range and is simply too much expensive to be used against any kind of single enemy inf squads.

Adding normal nades to them won't break the Allies or the balance anyhow, u know... It's just a kind of adding some more deserved flexibility, just like when to add flaming nades to the 101st AB units or sticky bombs to the infiltration Rangers.

It's a tiny subject and even nothing really that is worth any discussions I think

Well it wouldn't "break" the balance, but remember: The demo squad is not made to fight enemy troops. It is made to fight enemy emplacements and buildings. GIving it normal nades would simply lead to another allrounder squad that can do anything instead of having a specialized unit. Atm they can crawl and kill any emplacement by just throwing a single nade bundle + they can be equipped with 4 STG44. So they need to have some kind of "weakness".

AB unit and infiltration Rangers are allround combat units, like Panzergrens (Schreck, lmg, Stg, sticky bombs etc.). AB units have flaming nades simply because of AB doc^^ Just like SE, Panzergrens wouldn't need flame nades, but SE has them, so they get them

+1

Oh and keks, thank you for the mature and logical response. You didn't give in to your anger.

https://youtu.be/2Oy6DwHAi70



May i ask once again, why was 17pdr emplacement removed from raf? I know this is a bit late to bring this question up and must have missed the reason behind it when old patch was releasd, but im just curious for a logical explanation for such action.

[crimax]

Well, your question balances the other question "Why RAF will get Howitzer?"

It was removed because the "emplaced" version is more focused/related to a "camping style" doctrine as RA.

RAF is obviously THE "mobile" doctrine.

Don't forget that, in past, RAF got Firefly and in future it will get 95mm Howitzer.
So definitively, RAF will get the tools to break the front-line.

No more reasons to have "camping" tools and, this way, RA and RAF have two more clearly different purposes.

[ShadowIchigo]

Ahhh okok thankyou crimax, i kind of thought that was the reason why, i was just asking though i wasnt sure if there was a more specific reason (s) to why. I didn't bring this up either to say bring the emplacement back, even i barely used it bc im raf, so it makes perfect sense. More mp into offensive units i see. And man i was so happy when firefly got inplemented. That thing is a true lifesaver tbh. It really helps when u need an anti armor unit to support ur troops, esp since all brits have shitty ranged at inf.

[crimax]

A personal exaggeration ?

I could agree to remove emplaced mortars and mg nests to RAF Doctrine.
Only mobile mortars and MGs ...... totally two different ways to play RA and RAF.


It is an exaggeration ......... I stop now ..... I really start to like this idea .... I don't want to add more meat on the BBQ....

[ShadowIchigo]

A personal exaggeration ?

I could agree to remove emplaced mortars and mg nests to RAF Doctrine.
Only mobile mortars and MGs ...... totally two different ways to play RA and RAF.


It is an exaggeration ......... I stop now ..... I really start to like this idea .... I don't want to add more meat on the BBQ....

I kill you al quada ala dar! Lol but no that would hurt my soul :/ atleast if you removed mortar emplacement give brits a regular 60mm mortar or something to raf. Sure they got raf mortar but omg the production time is soo long and takes sometimes can take a while to get gloder tech 2 depending on situations. Plus theyre linited to only 2 (ofc u can always nade them). But the price is prod time is horribe to do such a thing lol

[Butterkeks]

Oh and keks, thank you for the mature and logical response. You didn't give in to your anger.

Well he posted a suggestion, supported it with arguments and yeah, just suggested it
No reason to go on a rant
Behave well, get treated well

A personal exaggeration ?

I could agree to remove emplaced mortars and mg nests to RAF Doctrine.
Only mobile mortars and MGs ...... totally two different ways to play RA and RAF.


It is an exaggeration ......... I stop now ..... I really start to like this idea .... I don't want to add more meat on the BBQ....

Well I could agree with the removal of mg nest. But if you remove the mortar emplacement, you only have the 2-inch mortar left, which is not capable of fighting axis mortars. The RAF commando mortar would just come way to late(4 CPs iirc?).
So if RAF could build the Commando mortar in HQ truck without unlock, then it would work. Otherwise this would be a way to big nerf imo

But my main problem here is that it leads to an even higher specialization of an allied doc. Means it would be even harder to counter axis all-in-one docs.

[ShadowIchigo]

Oh and keks, thank you for the mature and logical response. You didn't give in to your anger.

Well he posted a suggestion, supported it with arguments and yeah, just suggested it
No reason to go on a rant
Behave well, get treated well

A personal exaggeration ?

I could agree to remove emplaced mortars and mg nests to RAF Doctrine.
Only mobile mortars and MGs ...... totally two different ways to play RA and RAF.


It is an exaggeration ......... I stop now ..... I really start to like this idea .... I don't want to add more meat on the BBQ....

Well I could agree with the removal of mg nest. But if you remove the mortar emplacement, you only have the 2-inch mortar left, which is not capable of fighting axis mortars. The RAF commando mortar would just come way to late(4 CPs iirc?).
So if RAF could build the Commando mortar in HQ truck without unlock, then it would work. Otherwise this would be a way to big nerf imo

But my main problem here is that it leads to an even higher specialization of an allied doc. Means it would be even harder to counter axis all-in-one docs.

Yea i agree would make them way too specialized than they already are as of current. And oh comon keks u know u recalled correctly! Haha about the 4cps i mean.

[crimax]

...... Please don't stop to use your "slang" english.
I remember when I understood the meaning of "muzzafaka!" ... well, I was dying.

LOL

Back in topic:
just an anti-similar-doctrines idea..

[ShadowIchigo]

:) ...... Please don't stop to use your "slang" english.
I remember when I understood the meaning of "muzzafaka!" ... well, I was dying.

LOL

Back in topic:
just an anti-similar-doctrines idea..

Hahah are u reffering to me muthahfuckah?!? Hahahah

[Butterkeks]

Back in topic:
just an anti-similar-doctrines idea..

Yeah I actually support the idea, but not unless axis won't be more specialized too

[jaggardos]

Thank you sooooooooo much for adding in the Howitzer Cromwell to the RAF doc. My friend and I recently discovered that there was something missing from that doc that would be something in the form of artillery. They needed long range indirect fire, which they didnt have except for planes, which are very unreliable.

[ShadowIchigo]

Thank you sooooooooo much for adding in the Howitzer Cromwell to the RAF doc. My friend and I recently discovered that there was something missing from that doc that would be something in the form of artillery. They needed long range indirect fire, which they didnt have except for planes, which are very unreliable.

Haha +1 i am a highly extreme dedicated RAF player so i am sooo satisfied with this. Even if its just one, im not complaining at all. Im just highly greatful for even having an arty piece in raf. So yea, thank you guys! Thank you devs, and thank you community for greatly influencing the devs!!

Edit:
To devs

Can you guys please look into wehrmact scwimm reward unit? The hp or armor or whatever it is seems to be that of an armored car unit.

[Warhawks97]

Can you guys please look into wehrmact scwimm reward unit? The hp or armor or whatever it is seems to be that of an armored car unit.

My secret weapon when play WH (psst)....

Well it needs a sniper/reccon or officer inside to use MG but in new patch it gets perma MG just like PE schwimm. Devs should just make sure both having same armor/HP and weapon stats and i am fine.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Bikes can't drive backward unlike Jeeps or Schwimms, the PE Schwimm is literally too weak in armor... The WH one currently is just like the Jeep.. which is fine!

[Butterkeks]

Bikes can't drive backward unlike Jeeps or Schwimms, the PE Schwimm is literally too weak in armor...

Bikes should on purpose not drive backwards, as it's impossible for a bike to do so

PE Schwimm too weak? What? This baby takes 3-4 shots from Boys AT, if you keep the distance it isn't harmed at all^^
Compare it with bike or jeep, schwimm still is the most powerfull early vehicle out there

[ShadowIchigo]

Can you guys please look into wehrmact scwimm reward unit? The hp or armor or whatever it is seems to be that of an armored car unit.

My secret weapon when play WH (psst)....

Well it needs a sniper/reccon or officer inside to use MG but in new patch it gets perma MG just like PE schwimm. Devs should just make sure both having same armor/HP and weapon stats and i am fine.

Well thats exactly why im bringing it up bc of next patch update. Before it was OK... but not really.

[Warhawks97]

I think jeeps and schwimms are tooo durable. Srsly.... coz of them nobody can move inf units anywhere. These two vehicles are "the first step to camp game" coz they can shred inf quite well even when those has cover (sometimes even green cover). And i think inf should fear them only when being without cover but those two shouldnt stand so long a firefight against combat inf with 6 rifles (only vs pios and engis maybe) nor should they win it even! I mean its an quite easy target for guys with rifles and i think crits should be caused earlier and more often like gunner dead, engine damaged/destroyed etc.

Its ridiculous that it actually needs a pak already to kill them effectively. I highly doubt that small paks purpose was to shoot such small vehicles oO.

So pls, nerf their durability a bit but carefully as they should still be able to deny movment of enemie infantry.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Hello guys, although that no one ever asked to delay the Terror Grens MP44s by.. we could see that Wolf for some reasons actually managed to do so as he delayed the item by 1 CP... That's alright! But now I do have an idea or a request I mean;
As u can see.. he reduced the required points to reach the VT on the other hand by 1, but I believe it would be better and even more logic then if he would reduce the required CPs of reaching the Tiger tank by 1 instead.
In order to reach the KT... Currently u need 2-3-2-4= 11 CPs plus that it's costing a lot of fuel and MP too.
While u r in need of only 1-1-3-4= 9 CPs for the SP!!
I also never understood why would the Terror's Tiger tank require 5 direct points unlike the Blitz Tiger which is only in need of 4 points though that the Terror's Tiger could be easier countered even by inf due to lacking a top turret mounted MG gunner.
So it should be like this:-
2-2-2-4= 10 CPs.
Any objections???!!!

[ShadowIchigo]

Uea but dont forget to keep in mind u only get sp once. I think thats the reason for the trade off

[Krieger Blitzer]

And who would ever have the enough resources usually to keep spamming KTs?? ^^ Anyways; it's easy to kill the KT... Unlike the SP.