Blitzkrieg Mod 4.9.0 Patch TEST

[JimQwilleran]

Thx for response, I could learn animation and skins could be made in photoshop for example. If I made anything, it would be only for BK1 as I do not plan to waste my money on CoH2. So I guess I will stick with Bk1, if you ever decide to add something new or to cede the mod to someone else.

[Warhawks97]

We said that Boys AT are unreliable. Sometimes one squads kills them all, sometimes 3 cant stop one car. This is the problem. You never know whether top of flop. This is why i suggested what i suggested.


For zooks i did see that units during spring ability active have some accuracy reductions (accruarcy modifier 0.85 iirc) and and also after sprint easier to hit. I dont know why the schreck fails less often but idk if zook accuracy buff is a help as it would just increase the "frontal rush thing". If you want to buff accuracy then only for M6A3C. They dont get accuracy buff although its in the description and realistic.


For RL´s, just increase the rof. The max possible damage is just 10 lower than zook damage (30 coz damage is muliplier with 3 in TT´s). Thats OK i think, just the rof really sucks. 18-20 while schreck has 15.

It just came into my mind. The RL was heavier as zook and schreck but also had more effective fireing range. I think the RL´s greatest advantage could be its range when those of schrecks and zooks would get srsly reduced to idk, 30-35 like Panzerfaust of volks has atm which should be arround 30 and the fiast 100 from PE TH AT squad and gebirgs to 35 then. Just a thought. Idk which other advantage the RL could get. Accuracy and damage isnt a good option i think. Reload speed.... from realistic aspect i would even say no.


The positiv side effect of that hold pos delay is that the at squads keep running to get closer instead holding instantly on large range making a shot. Its a good feeling atm to be honest but they arent usless (got vet 5 PE AT squad, mainly ambush shooting). So during frontal rushes they now got often closer as before and it wasnt really a big issue so i think a range reduction wouldnt hurt that much. The difference was only that the squads died more often in silly frontal rush actions but still made their job when used correctly.

[Wolf]

Iam fairly sure that you will be able to get CoH2 with like everything needed (except single maybe) for like 10-15 Euros, it was already discounted multiple times.. that doesn't seem like a lot of wasted money, for the stuff I hope we will be able to do.

[jaggardos]

BOYS need to be tweaked, I'm not saying that an extra AT should be added as I think most agree it would suddenly be OP, just leave them as they are, price is good at 250, but maybe change damage and/or accuracy. Maybe make it so that shots have a 50% chance of immobilising/damaged engine or something, I dunno

[Krieger Blitzer]

The PE scout cars do often get to be 'destroyed engine' already by the US 37mm AT guns.. but the AT rifle boys don't even have such a high caliber rifle that would cause this to happen... I believe they are just really fine, exactly like as they are now for this new cost!

[jaggardos]

The PE scout cars do often get to be 'destroyed engine' already by the US 37mm AT guns.. but the AT rifle boys don't even have such a high caliber rifle that would cause this to happen... I believe they are just really fine, exactly like as they are now for this new cost!

I'm just throwing out ideas, if its unrealistic then that's cool... People just seem to want a simple buff to the BOYS, just need to think of something

[Devilfish]

4 boys with 2 would definitely bring much more cost / effectivity to the CW, and I disagree that they are always lacking or something like that. CW playstyle is just different, you are supposed to play them more defensive, so while there is definite anti "camp" crusade, CW was always the faction that was ment to be player in a way like "move a little, defend, move a little, defend" thats why there are emplacements / hulldowns / fireflys, of course if you take one boys squad to the front early, they might not take out 4 scout cars, but you can also have 2 boys squads, you can put them in the building, you can fire from distance. However even this is more "acceptable" (but I am still really really against it) than adding another xpounder to the brits, they are different, they should be different. When I knew about multiple PEs, I almost always went for 2 at boy squads, they got even cheaper, they got accuracy buff, since 4.7 even other buffs. And EVEN if they would be lacking, in next phase, they usually get Recce before other similar stuff, which is also nice against the enemy, and I am not going to add something because of it.

Is there any real reasoning behind this? What does it mean they should be different? You are contradicting yourself, saying brits are more defensive, establish a defensive line, move a little bit, repeat and at the same time refusing early AT gun at all cost. AT gun is much better suited for defensive role than AT infantry. Boys are better suited for flanking and advancing (if they didn't miss everything).
But whatever, I guess it must stay as it is because it SHOULD be like that.

.. but the AT rifle boys don't even have such a high caliber rifle that would cause this to happen...

Oh man you're a typical kind of person who always uses only what suits him and ignoring everything else. Suddenly, there is a realism, yea, such a small caliber couldn't possible damage an engine (which actually could, but whatever), but on the other hand it's ok that brits don't use an AT gun that they widely used and are using obsolete boys squads which they didn't in 44'. It's totally find that stormtroopers can just lay down and become invisible, realism is forgotten. Always simply use what suits your situation and play the dummy.I love such people.....

[MarKr]

When he says they should be different he means that CW simply doesn't have an early AT gun. By more defensive is meant that CW simply has less means for offense. Even their infantry performs better in defense than offense.

But everybody forgets the other important stuff - BOYS can capture points, AT guns cannot, BOYS can get buff from officer's command aura, AT guns cannot. BOYS have better mobility than AT guns.

[Butterkeks]

When he says they should be different he means that CW simply doesn't have an early AT gun. By more defensive is meant that CW simply has less means for offense. Even their infantry performs better in defense than offense.

But everybody forgets the other important stuff - BOYS can capture points, AT guns cannot, BOYS can get buff from officer's command aura, AT guns cannot. BOYS have better mobility than AT guns.

That's why I also think it would be best to simply give them some accuracy buff^^ Or better said, a higher buff

[Devilfish]

When he says they should be different he means that CW simply doesn't have an early AT gun. By more defensive is meant that CW simply has less means for offense. Even their infantry performs better in defense than offense.

But everybody forgets the other important stuff - BOYS can capture points, AT guns cannot, BOYS can get buff from officer's command aura, AT guns cannot. BOYS have better mobility than AT guns.

No, you dodged my question . CW doesn't have AT gun, that's how they are different. Not answering why should they be different. And if you have less means for defense, you should have more capabilities in defense (if you want balance). And don't you agree that AT gun is more suitable for defense?

Boys can get buff from officer, cool, 37mm at gun is still twice reliable. Boys have mobility, well firstly, 37mm at guns have really solid mobility for an AT gun, yes boys has better, but now comes the contradiction, on one hand we claim brits are more defensive and on the other we say that boys have mobility advantage compared to an AT gun, mobility for what, when we should defend....

Don't take me wrong, i know nobody cares what i think or want, and I'm never going to change anything here. Just want to discuss and get different reasons than Why?-Because.

[JimQwilleran]

No, you dodged my question . CW doesn't have AT gun, that's how they are different. Not answering why should they be different. And if you have less means for defense, you should have more capabilities in defense (if you want balance). And don't you agree that AT gun is more suitable for defense?

Boys can get buff from officer, cool, 37mm at gun is still twice reliable. Boys have mobility, well firstly, 37mm at guns have really solid mobility for an AT gun, yes boys has better, but now comes the contradiction, on one hand we claim brits are more defensive and on the other we say that boys have mobility advantage compared to an AT gun, mobility for what, when we should defend....

This is a good point. I know that brits are "different"... Wolf said that he doesn't plan adding any pdr to brits, but I wonder if he would maybe change his mind if a certain amount of players agreed with the idea. Still, it has always been very hard to convince devs to anything ;D.

[MarKr]

Not answering why should they be different.

They are different because we want some diversity in the game. If every faction has the same units only with different skins, then we'll have 4 identical factions where the only difference would be visual appearence. Or is your next question gonna be why WH needs phase upgrades when no other faction needs them?

And if you have less means for defense, you should have more capabilities in defense (if you want balance).

And they do. Every CW doc can build emplacements - MG nest, Mortar pit, Bofors AA and 17pounder (except for RAF). No other faction has this wide variety of emplacements in every doctrine.

And don't you agree that AT gun is more suitable for defense?

Yes, but CW has AT guns - 6pounder and 17pounder so for defensive purposes they can get them. But especially in the early game when they do the "move a little, defend, move a little, defend" BOYS fit to this well with their mobility.

[Devilfish]

Not answering why should they be different.

They are different because we want some diversity in the game. If every faction has the same units only with different skins, then we'll have 4 identical factions where the only difference would be visual appearence. Or is your next question gonna be why WH needs phase upgrades when no other faction needs them?

And if you have less means for defense, you should have more capabilities in defense (if you want balance).

And they do. Every CW doc can build emplacements - MG nest, Mortar pit, Bofors AA and 17pounder (except for RAF). No other faction has this wide variety of emplacements in every doctrine.

And don't you agree that AT gun is more suitable for defense?

Yes, but CW has AT guns - 6pounder and 17pounder so for defensive purposes they can get them. But especially in the early game when they do the "move a little, defend, move a little, defend" BOYS fit to this well with their mobility.

Why are you mocking me? You are just exaggerating everything i said. Of course fractions needs diversity and variation, yet every fraction except brits (3/4) has an early AT gun. Every fraction has a mg squad, is that ruining diversity? I'm not saying you should remove truck system for brits and give them common buildings, I am really that idiot for wanting an AT gun for brits, seriosly...

Why are you mentioning 6pd, 17pdr?? We are clearly talking about early game when there are no 17pdrs...are you kidding me right now? (brits can't even build a 6pdr unless calling glider, if it wasn't changed yet, btw)

[Butterkeks]

Why are you mocking me? You are just exaggerating everything i said. Of course fractions needs diversity and variation, yet every fraction except brits (3/4) has an early AT gun. Every fraction has a mg squad, is that ruining diversity? I'm not saying you should remove truck system for brits and give them common buildings, I am really that idiot for wanting an AT gun for brits, seriosly...

Why are you mentioning 6pd, 17pdr?? We are clearly talking about early game when there are no 17pdrs...are you kidding me right now? (brits can't even build a 6pdr unless calling glider, if it wasn't changed yet, btw)

Well Brits don't have an early AT gun but they have AT Boys. So I also don't quite understand why they should have an AT gun as I also see the Boys more functional.
If their accuraccy would be a bit better, I'd prefer them anytime over an early At Gun.

[Zetsuboon]

@Devilfish
I think a 2pdr would be a nice extra for the brits
But this also brings work with it and I think devs have enough to do in moment
I think we should wait for a better AT-boys squad that maybe comes (I actually forgot how this debate ended) instead of discussing about a new weapon and so I think argueing with the devs is waste of time when they say it wont come then we have to accept that

[Krieger Blitzer]

They are different because we want some diversity in the game. If every faction has the same units only with different skins, then we'll have 4 identical factions where the only difference would be visual appearence. Or is your next question gonna be why WH needs phase upgrades when no other faction needs them?

+1 Yes.. I think that's a very good answer by u MarKr... Also why don't the WH, the US or the PE factions have HQ trucks too unlike the CW on the other hand?
Same of his weird logic

Oh man you're a typical kind of person who always uses only what suits him and ignoring everything else. Suddenly, there is a realism, yea, such a small caliber couldn't possible damage an engine (which actually could, but whatever), but on the other hand it's ok that brits don't use an AT gun that they widely used and are using obsolete boys squads which they didn't in 44'. It's totally find that stormtroopers can just lay down and become invisible, realism is forgotten. Always simply use what suits your situation and play the dummy.I love such people.....

But I didn't say that they shouldn't be able to damage or destroy the engine as they currently do it occasionally btw already! I only stated that they can't have a higher chance of doing so than the AT guns...

[MarKr]

Why are you mocking me? You are just exaggerating everything i said. Of course fractions needs diversity and variation, yet every fraction except brits (3/4) has an early AT gun. Every fraction has a mg squad, is that ruining diversity? I'm not saying you should remove truck system for brits and give them common buildings, I am really that idiot for wanting an AT gun for brits, seriosly...

But that is the thing! You consider as diverse the fact that Brits have trucks, WH has phase system. But actually anything that is in some faction different from others adds to diversity. So BOYS in CW instead of light AT is a diversity thing. Iirc, in vCoH CW had no HMG team (except for commandos) this was also diversity but for the needs and working principles of BK it was added to CW because if they completely lack one, it would be unfair to them. But BOYS are substitution for light AT gun so you cannot say "Brits have no light AT unit in early game" they do. And the fact that it performs differently from other faction's light AT is not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe they miss often so we could talk about some light accuracy buff but light AT gun for CW is really not necessary.

I am really that idiot for wanting an AT gun for brits, seriosly...

Surely you are not an idiot. But there is a difference between what people want and what is needed.

[Anonter]

Still don't understand why an anti-tank rifle is being used in 44' anyway.

[Krieger Blitzer]

And why the SP is being used in the game even?

Don't use that logic plz.

[Butterkeks]

Still don't understand why an anti-tank rifle is being used in 44' anyway.

Why is the Elefant on Westfront?
Why is the Priests only used by Brits when it was an american vehicle?
Why are there no Glasmine 43?

Simple:
For variety reasons, for balance reasons, and in case of brits also for lack of models.

Boys AT was already there in vCoH and it would be just stupid to "throw away" an exisiting and functional model that is already implemented.

EDIT

@Tiger1996:
Well we are sharing seldomly the same opinion, but in that case you are totally right

[Krieger Blitzer]

Still don't understand why an anti-tank rifle is being used in 44' anyway.

Why is the Elefant on Westfront?
Why is the Priests only used by Brits when it was an american vehicle?
Why are there no Glasmine 43?

Simple:
For variety reasons, for balance reasons, and in case of brits also for lack of models.

Boys AT was already there in vCoH and it would be just stupid to "throw away" an exisiting and functional model that is already implemented.

EDIT

@Tiger1996:
Well we are sharing seldomly the same opinion, but in that case you are totally right

Well... I guess I have to give +1 for this!

[Zetsuboon]

Simple:
For variety reasons, for balance reasons, and in case of brits also for lack of models.

Boys AT was already there in vCoH and it would be just stupid to "throw away" an exisiting and functional model that is already implemented.

+1

[Anonter]

Lack of models I understand, elephant fought in italy as well but yes that isn't normandy. Personally I hate the thing, Superpershing i also wouldn't have if it was up too me. The whole point here is that the boys are pathetic and 2pdr would be far better suited to their play style.

[Butterkeks]

Lack of models I understand, elephant fought in italy as well but yes that isn't normandy. Personally I hate the thing, Superpershing i also wouldn't have if it was up too me. The whole point here is that the boys are pathetic and 2pdr would be far better suited to their play style.

Then build a model and make it ready for implementation

Then we can maybe have it in the mod around christmas

[Anonter]

lol what is everyones problem on this forum?

Another member was making the model which looked pretty good. I am just making my opinion heard.

2pdr over boys anyday.