Is the new patch balanced?

[Marquis de Sade]

Hello, I am not so new but not so old Bk player. I started playing the new patch and noticed that now it's much harder to win as axis. I can't clearly say what is the main reason. But the fact is now I can achieve less victories and they are always much harder, almost impossible. I don't believe it's a bad luck. I can feel that now axis are much less favourable.

Please judge this replay and tell me what our team did so wrong? Or maybe it's balance? Please notice tiger ace being killed in 2 full range shots.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Watched the game... I can't really tell what u did wrong on this game. Nonetheless, is the new patch really balanced?
Well, I would say it's too early to judge.. but to be honest, as a regard to the recent discussions about the "2 seconds delay" on handheld AT weapons; then I could probably address some of my own conclusions or just few points considering balance.

>>> Both the 90mm guns and the Pak40 are rather fine...
- Let's keep in mind that M36 now has no HE rounds, as well as much more vulnerable armor and significantly less HP. The M36 B1 also has less speed, and no longer HE rounds either! Pershings and Jacksons are like Tigers and Panthers, if I could say so.
But Tigers are available in 2 different docs... You can have 2 at a time! Blitz doc can also have them 1 command point earlier, while Pershings on the other hand are available in only a single 1 doc. Therefore they are unlimited... But who can have more than 3 Pershings anyway?? Jacksons are limited to 3, and Panthers aren't limited at all...
Panthers are actually available in 3 different docs too!
Not to mention, that i have seen the Tiger and the Panther bouncing off 90mm guns recently.. even after buffing the 90mm guns. Yes, might be less often... But they can still bounce off.
About prices... the Pershing cost as much as Panther A, Jacksons cost as much as Panther D from Luft doc; so where is the problem? is the problem that Pershings are available earlier than Panthers? Well, but Jacksons are then delayed if the Armor doc player ever decides to go for Pershings. And if he chooses to go for Jacksons first, the other way around.. then he is indeed risking to delay the Pershing... So, again.. where is the problem? Nothing serious i guess!

- Pak40 has much higher rate of fire than the US 76mm AT gun.. but btw, the 76mm AT gun is probably the highest tier AT gun that US can deploy. While the Pak40 isn't the best AT gun that Axis could deploy... As they still have 88s and Pak43. So, I guess there is nothing so wrong that Pak40 isn't performing so well against heavy Allied tanks.

>>> I have to admit Churchills can be a problem now.. and perhaps they need to cost a little bit more... Even though I am not too sure yet.

>>> Maybe Axis AT teams are overpriced now. I think there is no real reason that they should cost more than the Allied ones anymore... Specifically after correcting the scatter of the upgraded Bazookas, PIAT teams can be cheaper too.

Lastly, I don't think that the 2 seconds delay on handheld AT weapons should be ever reverted/changed, removed or even touched at all. Because it's an absolutely good change in my humble opinion!

[MarKr]

Hi Marquis de Sade,

I spent more than an hour watching a replay that SnowLeopard sent me and we talked about the Axis because he feels same as you. But I am confused on what is wrong. The biggest two changes were the "2 second delay on zookas/schrecks" and "Pershing good against Tigers and Panthers".
In the replay I watched, infantry with AT was able to destroy vehicles...they took loses but as long as they were in cover, they were able to shoot and hit/destroy vehicles. Also this change applied to both sides so it is hard to imagine that this change would severly affect Axis while keeping Allies same or better (correct me if I'm wrong).
The Pershing change can cause troubles to doctrines with Tigers and Panthers because these need now more careful usage and not just "roll and kill" with little risk. However players already started to use TH doctrine and killing Pershings with JP is easy (again in replay I watched, I would say that each JP in the game destroyed at least one, but usually two, Pershings). And TH doctrine can easily counter the Sherman spam too. So axis have counters to this change.

If vehicle-combat has counters on both sides and somewhat balanced, then infantry remains. It is true that AB and RAF can have strong infantry in late game with veterancy but this was the case even before 4.9.6 and people didn't complain about Axis being too weak. Also the PE infantry is cheaper now - Sturm pios can be built once you have their building and come with two free MP44s which can shred any early game Allied infantry, Assault grenadiers are solid infantry with good weapon upgrades and now also cheaper so in the long run you can have more of them or same number as before but spare resources for vehicles to support them, in general cheaper units mean more resources for more units.

Tiger and I don't usually agree on things but I agree with his post above...So I cannot see a logical reason why Axis should be (drastically) worse than before and so I am somewhat confused about all this "axis suck hard now".

[JimQwilleran]

Yes, you are right. I came to think that the reason behind the problem we have might be of psychological nature. What I mean is that now when allies feel more reliable, allie players are more offensive, they take more risks, play more aggressively. That's the reason why the game really feels significantly harder for axis now. The changes encouraged allie players to use more of the potential that until now has been blocked by some kind of fear or doubts (for example about facing heavy axis tanks). It's like now they are much more convinced about winning various encounters than before.
The question that follows my point of view: are the players going to find a new tactic/meta approach? Or are they more likely to keep complaining and trying to make you revert the changes?
I personally feel convinced about what you say about TH being now a demanded counter to somehow op armor doc. I am definitely gonna try it. But I am afraid not everybody shares my point of view.

And yes Marquis is me. It's my second account on steam as well. I wanted to give him a right of speech here . Pardon my small trick.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Btw, at minute 33:00 on this game... Terror doc Tiger1 takes a hit from the SP. But it bounces off the 90mm gun of the normal Pershing! However, the Pershing bounced off the 88mm gun as well.

But 2 Armor + RAF doc vs 2 Blitz, and 1 Terror.. no TH doc at all; So...

[Tor]

Nerfing commanders much worse for the Germans.
What tank use the most times commanders? pershing, m4 , panther, tiger.
Pershing don't have mg, tiger and panther have, axis have fast firing low accuracy mg, allies have slow firing good accuracy mg.
Fast firing with huge accuracy boost its like A-10 Gatling, allies with that boost good but much worse, especially near.
In new patch gatling gone.
In old patch panthers g witout commanders want blow up, better not build or build with comm, tigers can fight witout com.
Similar to jumbo, have armor but after penetration destroyed engine, gun or blow up, with commanders panthers okay but now like witout them.
USA=WH+Supply yard, why they have that boost idk.

[SnowLeo]

Hi Marquis de Sade,

I spent more than an hour watching a replay that SnowLeopard sent me and we talked about the Axis because he feels same as you. But I am confused on what is wrong. The biggest two changes were the "2 second delay on zookas/schrecks" and "Pershing good against Tigers and Panthers".
In the replay I watched, infantry with AT was able to destroy vehicles...they took loses but as long as they were in cover, they were able to shoot and hit/destroy vehicles. Also this change applied to both sides so it is hard to imagine that this change would severly affect Axis while keeping Allies same or better (correct me if I'm wrong).
The Pershing change can cause troubles to doctrines with Tigers and Panthers because these need now more careful usage and not just "roll and kill" with little risk. However players already started to use TH doctrine and killing Pershings with JP is easy (again in replay I watched, I would say that each JP in the game destroyed at least one, but usually two, Pershings). And TH doctrine can easily counter the Sherman spam too. So axis have counters to this change.

If vehicle-combat has counters on both sides and somewhat balanced, then infantry remains. It is true that AB and RAF can have strong infantry in late game with veterancy but this was the case even before 4.9.6 and people didn't complain about Axis being too weak. Also the PE infantry is cheaper now - Sturm pios can be built once you have their building and come with two free MP44s which can shred any early game Allied infantry, Assault grenadiers are solid infantry with good weapon upgrades and now also cheaper so in the long run you can have more of them or same number as before but spare resources for vehicles to support them, in general cheaper units mean more resources for more units.

Tiger and I don't usually agree on things but I agree with his post above...So I cannot see a logical reason why Axis should be (drastically) worse than before and so I am somewhat confused about all this "axis suck hard now".

Yes. But don't forget you are check accuracy m26 versus tiger. They 100% and 80% have tiger versus m26. So, now m26 all-time kill tiger with 2shots. And you agree what accuracy need low.

[Panzer-Lehr-Division]

Yes, you are right. I came to think that the reason behind the problem we have might be of psychological nature. What I mean is that now when allies feel more reliable, allie players are more offensive, they take more risks, play more aggressively. That's the reason why the game really feels significantly harder for axis now. The changes encouraged allie players to use more of the potential that until now has been blocked by some kind of fear or doubts (for example about facing heavy axis tanks). It's like now they are much more convinced about winning various encounters than before.
The question that follows my point of view: are the players going to find a new tactic/meta approach? Or are they more likely to keep complaining and trying to make you revert the changes?
I personally feel convinced about what you say about TH being now a demanded counter to somehow op armor doc. I am definitely gonna try it. But I am afraid not everybody shares my point of view.

And yes Marquis is me. It's my second account on steam as well. I wanted to give him a right of speech here . Pardon my small trick.

Total agree with you, after everyone new Patch but Most like this one i see axis lose very often me too since i player this Patch o lost 6-5 times maybe won 3 time yet allies feel's easie for me too play i also Noticed as axis i am afraid very afraid to make any step forward now

[Leonida [525]]

So it was you yesterday with graywolf and me Illa .. It was really hard game, allies were really offensive and I thought we would lose but at the end we managed to win .. Yup Lets wait some time before judging balancing
P.S. I love all new Luft airstrikes! I cant count how many AB squads I wiped out with new straffing run

[Devilfish]

I don't think we can judge much about balance based on this game. Notice how we had just 1/4 of the map in control basically from the beginning to the end. Quite opposite actually. Would have been an indication of imbalance if we'd turned that game to our favor. I mean we even killed SP and some Pershings and stuff, but they just came with more and more.
Pershing two-shooting Tiger ACE......correct me if I'm wrong, but damage of 90mm wasn't buffed, so it was a pure RNG.

Just few things I'd point out.
Notice how Stug4 penetrates Pershing at max range. It was camoed and vet 2 though. Don't know how much of an RNG was that. Pity it was one-shot right before it managed to fire the second round (this time with APCR unlike the first).
Secondly, I was surprised how my opponent was able to do the good old AT squad rushes against my Stugs. Found the reverse speed and mg efficiency quite unlike I've remembered it. Maybe it was due to terrain? Or I have a bad memory.
Thirdly, I found the Stormtroopers kinda inefficient aswell. Getting instantly pinned by US mg squad and also in a 1v1 fight vs rangers, I dunno, just felt underwhelming. Admittedly I didn't have ammo to upgrade them with weapons, but still, remembered them being better.

[JimQwilleran]

I just wanted to point out that not all changes are measurable. I know that this particular game is not enough to judge the whole balance. But on the other hand I wanted to express my feelings, and to be honest, playing with axis became harder than I could expect from the changelog. That's all.
I have a problem now because I like the patch. It makes things more realistic and tactical. But unintentionally it made allies too strong - not in the terms of actual in-game buff and values, but in terms of psychological advantage.

[MarKr]

Yes, you are right. I came to think that the reason behind the problem we have might be of psychological nature. (....)

But then the problem would not be the changes that the patch brought (in sense of values etc.) but simply some "morale boost" that Allied players now have - that is hardly a problem of the patch.

But 2 Armor + RAF doc vs 2 Blitz, and 1 Terror.. no TH doc at all; So...

Maybe one thing that the patch brought is that Axis players can no longer choose whatever doctrine they want and still win without bigger problems. 2 Blitz + 1 Terror might work in the past because Blitz's best tanks are Tigers and Panthers, Terror has KTs which can mess up Pershings but are more likely to field Tigers and Panthers G first. At this point US Armor poses a threat with Pershings, especially double US Armor. But double US armor vs TH and Def docs? They would struggle - Def doc can place PaK43 which messes up Allied tanks easily, Panther turms and actually with such doctrine selection US armor has no real advantage because these docs use no Panthers or Tigers.

Fast firing with huge accuracy boost its like A-10 Gatling, allies with that boost good but much worse, especially near.
In new patch gatling gone.

I don't understand...how did we change MGs in the patch and how are Tank commanders connected to it?
Do you mean that before Tank commanders made tank MGs more accurate? That is not true. TCs only boost tank main gun, not MGs.

Yes. But don't forget you are check accuracy m26 versus tiger. They 100% and 80% have tiger versus m26. So, now m26 all-time kill tiger with 2shots. And you agree what accuracy need low.

Yes, Pershing accuracy is insanely high against Tigers, so this will be fixed. But that doesn't change what I said - if you know your opponent has Pershings and you have Tigers/Panthers, then your teammates with JP needs to take care of Pershings and people know this and do it that way. In your replay you were destroying Pershigns with JP while your teammate built like one Panther in entire game but instead build infantry to support your JP - in chat they also said "don't go with tanks alone, wait for my infantry". So people are aware of the generally needed tactics.

Notice how Stug4 penetrates Pershing at max range. It was camoed and vet 2 though. Don't know how much of an RNG was that.

Basic chance at max range is 20% (similarly as any 75mm L48 gun; static postion doesn't affect penetration; haven't checked Vet bonuses but if they boost this then it won't be more than +5% I think) so it was sort of lucky. 1 in 5 chance is not high but you also have worse situations in the game.

Secondly, I was surprised how my opponent was able to do the good old AT squad rushes against my Stugs. Found the reverse speed and mg efficiency quite unlike I've remembered it. Maybe it was due to terrain? Or I have a bad memory.

Again - from what I've seen so far, AT squads can destroy vehicles. But players usually send them in front of tank where they have no cover or "red" cover - these attacks usually fail and the squad retreats or dies with little success. If they are kept in cover they manage to fire and do damage (then retreat).

Thirdly, I found the Stormtroopers kinda inefficient aswell. Getting instantly pinned by US mg squad and also in a 1v1 fight vs rangers, I dunno, just felt underwhelming. Admittedly I didn't have ammo to upgrade them with weapons, but still, remembered them being better.

The only change to storms was that they cannot pop out of empty emplacements. Weapons are untouched, HP, costs, suppression resistance etc. still the same. Same goes for infantry on allies side. Only difference are Flamethrowers but again - both sides can have them.But I haven't seen them in use...maybe once and the engineer squad still died quite fast.

[sgtToni95]

The only change to storms was that they cannot pop out of empty emplacements. Weapons are untouched, HP, costs, suppression resistance etc. still the same. Same goes for infantry on allies side. Only difference are Flamethrowers but again - both sides can have them.But I haven't seen them in use...maybe once and the engineer squad still died quite fast.

Lol you should watch Redgardeen's replays, i can imagine him laughing while roasting his enemies, they work nice on combat engies from RE and INF docs, so.. well done guys!