Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:By the way, i ve never seen RA in pvp since patch came out.

Maybe because the other brits factions got buffed nicely...

Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:Good of course:)

what is good?

Anyway, ive seen RE more often now than RA and even RE deciding games with churchills. Thats good in my opinion.

BK is now like CoH2 with all that last patches.
I dont care if something is good(RE played more than RA now, or other things) when the gameplay feels just like a another boring stratigic war game then its not BK mod anymore.

what is "another"?


And where it is compareable to coh2? Its far from it and the mods are also completely different in every aspect.



coh2 is axis= blobb+schreck. BK isnt that anymore which is good. Or at least not so much anymore.

I talk about the gameplay, bk gameplay is nearly the same now.
No attacking 2or3 shermans with only one PZ IV anymore... much other things not anymore.

Yes i know you dont like it when a PZ IV can beat 2 shermans, i told so many times what bk mod was about and now its about what CoH2 spearhead is about.

Terence's Mouth wrote:I talk about the gameplay, bk gameplay is nearly the same now.
No attacking 2or3 shermans with only one PZ IV anymore... much other things not anymore.

Yes i know you dont like it when a PZ IV can beat 2 shermans, i told so many times what bk mod was about and now its about what CoH2 spearhead is about.

It was never about that.

And a Pz. IV often still can beat two 76(w) shermans. The mod is still the same, just allies have now also good chances if you play them well.
I had a game yesterday where I fought off two Ranger squads + combat engineers + rifles + brits sappers + US pios with two Terror Grens with STG upgrade.

So Axis still have more powerfull units, but when Allies watch out and don't do stupid blobbing or anything they now also have a chance. And that's something I really, really like at the current version.

Terence's Mouth wrote:I talk about the gameplay, bk gameplay is nearly the same now.
No attacking 2or3 shermans with only one PZ IV anymore... much other things not anymore.

Yes i know you dont like it when a PZ IV can beat 2 shermans, i told so many times what bk mod was about and now its about what CoH2 spearhead is about.

ehm.


The 76 guns got slight buff against Tank IV´s. Instead appox 40% pen chance vs tank IV at max range its not approx 50%. The Tank IV in return has still 95%-80% pen chance vs sherman at max range. Note pls that unlike in old versions, the Tank IV became cheaper. The old Tank IV´s you talking about did cost 100 fuel and 75 with mass prod. Today a Tank IV J with mass production cost arround the same as a 76 sherman with mass production. You cant expect the units performence "like in old times" when the cost ratios got changed.

And for me it was too ridiculous easy doing rush games. So i am glad that Tank IV mass production and tank IV performence got changed a bit.


A Tank IV has still a better chance with basic AP rounds to win a fight against a 76 sherman as the sherman has with AP rounds. + Add to this that the Tank IV is a way more resistant to zooks and medium paks as the shermans are to schrecks and 50 mm guns.

And the MG 42 top mount (which is actually a MG34 stats wise) is a way more deadly as the HMG cal 50. Esspecially at distant range (30 or 35-60 iirc) the Cal 50 has almost no effect on enemies. Only those of CW recce has some becuase it has twice more accuracy as US top mount cal 50). But unlike axis top mount the top mount sherman MG´s cant fight off inf effectievly at ranges beyond schreck range.

Butterkeks wrote:It was never about that.

And a Pz. IV often still can beat two 76(w) shermans. The mod is still the same, just allies have now also good chances if you play them well.
I had a game yesterday where I fought off two Ranger squads + combat engineers + rifles + brits sappers + US pios with two Terror Grens with STG upgrade.

So Axis still have more powerfull units, but when Allies watch out and don't do stupid blobbing or anything they now also have a chance. And that's something I really, really like at the current version.

+1

@butter
The aliet always had good chances to win games, or you think the mod was played because everbody played with axis only?

@hawks
I know you found things ridiculous i know that there some people that are with you.
But again that old gameplay or feeling isnt there anymore, its gone with all that last changes/patches.

I just said that nothing else, not the first time and i still can say the same...
BK mod goes in a direction that is definatly more next to CoH2 Spearhead than the old style of BK Mod.

So what now? Again you come with some Numbers and Patches, Cost changes and say im wrong because of that?
You dont think there is a way to change the costs back?
Or let me ask another question? Why do you cant say just one sentence like "yes BK Mod isnt BK Mod anymore and i like that new style of it" ?

I dont want to discuss with you, i dont need a discuss about it(If BK Mod changed or not) I know your opinion and i know how BK Mod was changed in the last year/s.

I just said i want the old style of bk mod back and i realy prefer that style, nothing else.

The reason why i said this,is that im not alone with that opinion and another reason is that i want to know if Wolf or who ever created all this last patches want a new style of BK Mod or just want improve the real BK Mod.

One simple example i want to bring that helps everybody to understand.

Attacking with one PZ IV 2-3 Shermans was fun.
Attacking with 2 Shermans a single PZ IV was fun.
Attacking 1vs1 PZ IV vs Sherman and luck wins isnt fun.

Its just one example you can make more examples with infantry or other units.

Or the hiding ambush gameplay with aliet was realy fun but the aggresive offensive style of axis was fun too.
What we have now? 2 factions with same chances = 2 factions with same gameplay.
Hell yea americans have a chance now to win games when playing that axis style, damn right but what you think happens to the game with that changes?

Go on with listening to warhawks numbers and speeches about realstic canon shooting or realism itself...
But I definetly know that we only get less fun instead of more fun.
Wake up Neo

Terence's Mouth wrote:@butter
The aliet always had good chances to win games, or you think the mod was played because everbody played with axis only?

Yes, they played for axis. I was waiting three hours on axis side before the first fucking enemie came in. There had been only Groups which played allied. Always the same players in a team. Random teams usually failed. And i did one 15 min after the other. Even 4 vs 4 against players which later became SVT clan didnt took loner than 10 mins with standard res.

Atm i am very happy to see a lot more allied players which are not the "typicall one" and also more random allied teams.

@hawks
I know you found things ridiculous i know that there some people that are with you.
But again that old gameplay or feeling isnt there anymore, its gone with all that last changes/patches.

Lol, only me? I could quickly write down three huge clans + many others leaving the mod because of "what i found ridiculous". Some annoucned to return (alone and entire clans and mates) when these things would get fixed. They didnt so they left, forever. Most famous sample: JoeThePro and all his mates. Now changes are being made and has been made but a bit too late... sadly.Btw, Speahread was created because of these "things which i found ridiculous". Its even written down somewhere in spearhead mod description. And the current project leaders also think like me.

First time since years the "irish, UK" group Tharkun, Rik, Great and VoteVeto returned. They have left BK mod like one or two years ago after a game where i rushed them in 4 vs 4 together with sukin and others. Great left the game after two jeeps couldnt kill my volks in a fucking open field and when my volks forced both jeeps to retreat. And now these guys came back and when i saw that i got simply so happy to see them back.

So what now? Again you come with some Numbers and Patches, Cost changes and say im wrong because of that?
You dont think there is a way to change the costs back?
Or let me ask another question? Why do you cant say just one sentence like "yes BK Mod isnt BK Mod anymore and i like that new style of it" ?

What or who defines Bk mod? Once the tetrarch CS which bashed all inf and vehicles in a single shot and which couldnt get penetrated by 20 mm shells. Is it that what you mean?

And now, cost changed back wont help. Besides they had been often stupid.

I think we got a better BK mod. Now more silly blobbs of elites which made any other unit production obsolet. And only OP unit vs OP unit while 90% of the other units had no reasons for being in this game: e.g: M15A1, M20 and many others.

I dont want to discuss with you, i dont need a discuss about it(If BK Mod changed or not) I know your opinion and i know how BK Mod was changed in the last year/s.

really, what got changed. I still have pretty much everything in my head regarding "all changes". I could tell you know cost of many units in old version. I guess you wouldnt prefer reinforce cost for Luftwaffe inf of 63 per men, or? Or 101st AB for 54 or 60 per men, right? Or What about more expensive grens? Maybe 390 for basic Pgrens and 39 per men? Or 450 for the assault Pgren and WE grens and 38-42 per men?

What about the nasty stupa that ruined all fun in games? 5 or 6 Large topics got created about that unit just to say how BS that unit is/was.

I just said i want the old style of bk mod back and i realy prefer that style, nothing else.

The reason why i said this,is that im not alone with that opinion and another reason is that i want to know if Wolf or who ever created all this last patches want a new style of BK Mod or just want improve the real BK Mod.

seriously? this is what you say?

I told you that old style of bk is that diffrent gamestyle of the two factions/sides.
Of course i dont want all that bugs and bad things back

Again you just angry talk and talk but again were at the same point then before.

The be more clearly. First you say you like something on old times. But idk what exactly. At the same time now you say you dont like the "bad things".

So give me something more exactly. Unit cost... CP cost, performences.... idk just something. But saying "i like old times" but "not the bad things". You must be honest that it doesnt help anyone here when nobody knows what exactly you like or disliked.

And when you did then it was just a "feeling" from your side while a unit never got rewokerd, just used by new players in a diferent way which just makes you feeling a unit got "better" or "worse" when in fact you just learned how to use or not to use a unit:P

Or the hiding ambush gameplay with aliet was realy fun but the aggresive offensive style of axis was fun too.
What we have now? 2 factions with same chances = 2 factions with same gameplay.
Hell yea americans have a chance now to win games when playing that axis style, damn right but what you think happens to the game with that changes?

In old times we had two diffrent kinds of gamestyle:

On american side: More deffensive and ambushing style, more covering style, an outnumbering fighting style.

On axis side: Offensive frontally attacking style, more not caring about position style, a 1unit vs more units style.

Maybe there is more but this must be enough.

Now axis dont play in that aggresive offensive style anymore.
In one post yourself said that axis use tons of artillery and nonstop shoot with neblers, its just because theyre scared of making an offensive.
I realy miss that.
And i realy hate that axis have to be more defensive than ever before.

On the other side:
Not every doctrine but at the infantry doctrine you can see that americans can make a better offensive than axis in the early and maybe in the middle game too.
Aliets keep getting better and loose that defensive style and the must be of ambushing tactics.

What we got is: We loose that aggresive offensive gamestyle on axis side and that ambushing style on aliet side.
In old times this two diffrent gamestyles made the game realy intresting but now the gamestyles are getting closer and closer to each other.

I want two diffrent gamestyles and gamefeelings instead of one gamestyle with diffrent units.

The prob was that allied had been "doomed" not to attack when axis didnt want.

The Axis alone made the decision whether doing camp or offense style. When they did offense, that allied could ambush and could outnumber them and making ground after the axis attack. BUT... The EXTREM large BUT was, that when axis started camp, there was ONLY camp and axis most likely won. And allied could ONLY use arty.... tons of howitzers and even that was often not enough. In fact the number of perma MG bunkers increased despite the fact allied did nonstop arty shooting. That really sucked.

Saying that it was "ok" that axis decided whether the game is a non camp high dynamic or boring camp game is not called balance if you ask me, when allied had to play the way axis wanted. There we had simply the luck that we had a small community or at least most players did not play the camp style (there had been only three or four campers) and so games had always been full of dynamic attacks etc. But thats not because the game was different, but rather the players simply played different.

If you would use old version nowdays with all these new players then i would bet that that there would be a lot more camp games than ever before.


And you can attack with axis now. The KT armor got buffed against 76 mm US guns. So as long as you face only US, you can go full aggressive with KT or at least a lot more. But here you wanted the "balance" by making 76 paks quite capable to stop the KT.

So saying: "Axis could be more aggressive in old versions, but US 76 guns should be quite capable to stop KT" is somewhat hard to understand, or not?


So Better KT and churchill armor allows more aggressive playing and thus more dynamic and less arty. But here you dont like the new possible dynamical gameplay.



So its hard for me to follow you and to understand what you actually want.

Yea im not wondering that you still cant understand after all that time.

And i never played a game in this times where axis decided about the gameplay where aliets was just a mouse in the corner.

But its okay for me now, i see im the only one writing in that forum whos against that "new style" and i noticed i can write what i want you just pervert my words and never will stop talking and asking about other stuff...
So i will stop now, i wrote my opinion and hope youre the only one who still cant understand it.

Well...
I understand what you want to tell us Terence. And I'm also pretty sure that Warhawks also understands it.
I guess the thing that both of us can't understand is how you can think the "Old stlye" was any better?

Terence's Mouth wrote:@butter
The aliet always had good chances to win games, or you think the mod was played because everbody played with axis only?

Nearly. There was such a big bunch of "I play only Axis" dudes...
The reason Cyber and me started playing Allies was because it was nearly impossible to get a game as Axis. With allies we had up to 10 games /day.
And look at BK mod nowadays. People like Panzer-Lehr-Division or Tiger1996 who mostly played Axis (or in case of Panzer who only played PE) now also start to explore the Allied side. Tiger started playing Brits and Panzer played US. This adds so much more diversity to the game. Not only the same players plaing the same docs...

Damn it, i said we loose that two diffrent kinds of gamestyle that made BK Mod intresting........................

That Two diffrent styles was that BETTER thing in OLD TIMES.
get it?

Terence's Mouth wrote:Damn it, i said we loose that two diffrent kinds of gamestyle that made BK Mod intresting........................

That Two diffrent styles was that BETTER thing in OLD TIMES.
get it?

I understood before.
But I still think Warhawks is completely right hen he says that Allies had nearly no chance to do something and coulod only react to what Axis did.

And I think there are still two different styles of playing. But now both sides have the possibility to attack/defend etc.
And I like it more like this.
Armies themselves are very different and also have very different mechanics. So yes, there still are two way different styles.

I understand too, but I don't really agree. Yes, you can't go straightforward with MEDIUM tank to 2vs1 without great risk anymore, BUT:

- Dont forget that f.e. Panther G wasn't in BKmod for a while
- Heavys got buffed, not only KT, iirc Tiger, JT, Elefant, stuff like that got "armor buff".
- Removed damage increase from 76 HVAPS - these caused more oneshots
- Reduced arty immobilisation - which was the biggest risk for Axis tanks before
- Removed threadbreakers
- Increased AT gun prices

Yes, of course, to counterbalance, there were changes:

- Churchills got armor buff, on the other hand Ace is no longer capable of destroying tanks realiably
- 76es are able to penetrate mediums more

So if I understand that you would rather play with medium tanks 2vs1, then play more like 3vs2 or something like that, then sorry, but not going to happen, we buffed HEAVYs, because they are costly and they should have more time ingame. Maybe you are talking about even older times, but in these times there were different problems for axis (like priest destryoing about everything, like I wrote in some other topic). If you want to play 2vs1 against mediums, go for Panthers / Tigers atleast.

I noticed that aliet gameplay goes into a direction that makes them more offensive and i noticed that axis gameplay goes into a direction that makes them more deffensive.

In my opinion its wrong, i wanted to tell my opinion.
If you have another opinion its okay.

The problem i got is that i fight for another type of BK Mod that would be the best with my opinion or in my opinion.
If you want another one its okay for me too,i just have to know in which direction BK Mod goes to stop telling my opinion and ask for changes.
or at least change my opinion.

Well thats why I am telling you, mediums should fight mediums (and axis still have advantage here) and if you attack heavies with mediums, you should lose, unless you use more of them / control them perfectly, here again, axis has advantage. Problem in previous versions was that EVEN if you outnumbered something as allied, or even if you had xyz territory, there was unit like StuPa, which destroyed it all, while you claim that you had 2 different strategies, I claim that you had them, but the allied one was frustrating. Yes, we played as allies when we wanted challenge, it still is somewhat like that, but I agree that it lowered. On the other hand, like 75% of allied games were frustrating, because of something, some details. It was definitely fun for axis, because you could steamroll everything with some unit, or you could get back even if you had like 20% of territory left pretty easilly due to some certain units. Games are more even now, but mostly I believe that they are not THAT frustrating. Honestly most frustration I can see NOW from axis players, that were used to use that one unit in absolutely stupid way, like mentioned stupa, who then claim zomg allies OP, because I can't oneshot everything with stupa. Why should you use f.e 560 MP PZIV to destroy 2 shermans for 460 (previous prices) easily ? That was frustrating on allied side -> people went for best allied solution then -> arty everything -> 75% of games arty party (or RA ingame).

So the main question that follows:

Considering good players, did you have fun game as allied and axis while playing? I'd say unless you had some private rules, agreements, then allied side mostly not, axis yep, BUT, because of said problems, allied often went for arty which resulted in immobilising precious heavies -> pissed off axis.
I don't take new/bad players into this, as you had pretty much very good chance to beat them for any side and even any doctrine, but new vs new player usually ends up in axis winning and allied player frustrated by axis mg/mortar/previously FSJ, KCH, storms/heavies.

Anyways, to calm you down a bit, I think we now have it balanced really good, and aside from few changes that didn't make it to 4.8.3 there is nothing really NEEDED to change soon and we kind of want to leave some "unrealistic" parts of the game, that are fun. We also need to have some month for players get used to changes, it will be a bit more even then, now everybody is excited to play RE as it got most significant changes and RAF for the new thompsons + currently popular double raf combo.

Okay i understand your point, but a big problem now where the units are well balanced are the emplacements.
Aliet can fight vs Axis in a balanced way but still can build map full of emplacements.
There is realy a need to change this.

1.Older times aliet was weaker but had more and cheaper emplacements that was a good way to stop axis.
2.Now aliet are stronger but still have that cheap emplacements.

Pls dont tell me now axis have stronger emplacements.
Most of games especiacily 2vs2 games arnent played by Def or SE doc but with INF or Britains Docs.
And this games are just to boring or to much struggling for axis that there isnt any fun.

You said "in old times aliet never had fun" but now axis have most time struggling games if they dont use tons of artillery.
Generally games look realy much more static than ever before because all this changes make axis players playing more defensive and aliet ever played defensive.
All that comes from that balancing infantry and tanks while not rebalancing emplacements, pls think about that.


Tanks are well balanced for me, Infantry is okay balanced for me too, Arty vs Arty is balanced okay but the last thing you have to adjust are the emplacements
And this is a big problem i think, the balance with strong axis infantry vs weak aliet infantry in combination with emplacements worked fine but what now?

Playing boring camp/bombing games? Limit the emplacments or put all of them out of the game?

I only see one good idea that could solve that problem and this are that little/middle artillery guns for all doctrines.
(They definatly have to make enough damage to destroy vickers and mortar emplacements)
Plus another idea i realy like is to give all artillery 2 types of shooting(like the caliope with short and long shooting time)

Terence's Mouth wrote:Tanks are well balanced for me

In my opinion.. not really, actually the Allies do still have more advantages whenever it comes to be about armors warfare; simply because of that usually they have longer firing ranges and exactly that's what makes it so risky to attack using any Axis tanks; whatever heavies or mediums! Specifically since that the Allies tanks are often very well covered by the emplacements... And that's the main problem of which u r trying to hint on atm

Honestly it's also just very disappointing for me when I ever manage to get an Ace Tiger in such a too difficult Blitz doc situation that later gets easily out ranged with a Firefly somehow


Yet, I like the recent changes for sure... But I guess u have a point though. However that I would suggest to give the Axis tanks better long distance fighting capabilities instead. And the most important btw is to fix the almost totally bugged Accurate Long Range Shot ability for now :\

Youre right alies tanks but also infantry is often well covered by emplacments and the neblers are realy useless vs emplacements, so terror doctrine only got that stuka(expensive munition price) or what its called, BK only got Nebler, Luft only has nebler and TH with that lil tank has the best arty vs emplacements if you dont count def and se doc.

Increase Tank range wouldnt help vs emplacements only vs tanks but if we can fix that emplacement problem i dont see any big problems in tank battles.
Youre right ambushing M10s or hellcat are powerfull in stopping tigers or panthers but if you increase axis tank range you still wouldnt see this tanks before theyre shooting.
I think aliet should keep that bonus to stop axis tank offensives.

It's an enough pleasure for me that the 107mm mortar emplacements are now much easier to kill.. and that those emplacements are no longer bouncing off handheld AT weapons too or at least greatly less often, but still I would never dare to decrease the efficiency of the Allies emplacements.. u know why?! Simply because I believe that the Allies 'for ages' have been always mainly based on the emplacements around several different tactical aspects. This would need a shitload of work then in order to finally balance it out again... That's why I would prefer not to touch the emplacements but to probably decrease the price of the Blitz doc Opel Maultier trucks rocket barrage just slightly perhaps!!
Only 75ammo instead of 85 maybe

In addition to that.. currently the fact that the Ace Tiger is unable to use the Accurate Long Range Shot since the beginning is definitely miserable. Same to the Pershing Ace that it can't use the Rapid Shots, as they are both requiring one more Vet lvl to be obtained in order to become hopefully allowed to use such very important special abilities, and that makes u feel absolutely no any differences at all if u would ever choose the normal versions of them on the other hand -_-
As I would "once again" also like to see Panthers able to use the Accurate Long Range Shot on Vet lvl 2 as well in a replacement of the Rapid Shots ability.