5.1.5 beta version

If there is something new, it will be posted here.
kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1364
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby kwok » 22 May 2018, 19:32

I think the way “slow” works is through posture speed. I can’t access Corsix to validate something’s. There is a way to double check: does g43 suppress stack with an already exhausted squad. Pretty sure it doesn’t? In which case exhaust and g43 “suppress” is just a posture speed modifier. Which actually makes me wonder, why not make g43 suppress actually suppress or at least down to posture speed crawl? At least aesthetically looks more immersive.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2537
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby MarKr » 22 May 2018, 20:14

I just checked it and you're right - G43s apply posture change, not movement change. Same for CW LT bonus on infantry.

Change to G43 ability would be possible I guess, but is it really needed? Thre is already ton of things that suppress infantry quickly and giving another option to do so seems as a bit pointless...
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Warhawks97 » 22 May 2018, 20:22

MarKr wrote:I just checked it and you're right - G43s apply posture change, not movement change. Same for CW LT bonus on infantry.

Change to G43 ability would be possible I guess, but is it really needed? Thre is already ton of things that suppress infantry quickly and giving another option to do so seems as a bit pointless...


The the Axis "BAR"^^
Perhaps not as effective and costing less but at least some stuff to suppress.
This is the first non speed change related stuff we are talking about :D

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1364
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby kwok » 22 May 2018, 20:29

If I recall... infantry move speed is something around 4.1 or something tank speed.

And it’s purely aesthetic therefore pointless. Inf suddenly going slo mo but still walking when being shot at by a suppressive volley looks silly. By moving the posture -2 instead of -1 would make them still the same effective speed but look like their being “suppressed”.

Ehhhhhhh one more stupid ask. Can airborne pathfinders get hold position? I can’t remember the exact spot open ui slot it could fit. I can find out once I get back home.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2537
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby MarKr » 22 May 2018, 20:32

That could work, though it is not a priority right now.

AB pathfinders don't have it yet? I thought we gave it to all units already? Anyway, it should not be a problem.
Image

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1364
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby kwok » 22 May 2018, 21:36

It doesn’t. It has a lot of buttons already, not sure where there is room. I had a spot in mind but can’t remember right away. But thaaaaaaannksssssssss.

drivebyhobo
Posts: 101
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby drivebyhobo » 22 May 2018, 21:49

MarKr wrote:I don't know why everybody is so crazy out of sudden...feedback - even a negative one - is OK as long as it is in a normal polite manner...with all this fuss that's been going on I start to wonder if maybe my understanding of the phrase "polite manner" is somehow wrong :D

MarKr wrote:Maybe it is because there hasn't been a public beta and if there was beta released then it was for few days and then it went live, this is not the case, this beta will take several weeks, even months if needed.

I think many posters in the topic including myself came away with that expectation that there was to be a few minor tweaks and then it would be pushed to live. I don't think that was an unreasonable conclusion to reach based on the recent past.


MarKr wrote:The reason for the speed changes was actually the rear penetration adjustments

MarKr wrote:The reason for the speed changes was actually the rear penetration adjustments
...At the same time the the heavy units gained some extra range and reload times were adjusted too with all this the heavy tanks would still be in a disadvantage - because the extra +5 range was covered with the original speeds in about less than 2 seconds

If that's the reason, then why is the team so wedded to the idea of a radical vehicle speed change that deeply cuts across all 12 doctrines? There must be a less impactful way that doesn't take a chainsaw through many of the game's concepts. Does the reward for flanking have to be that good? Is it such a problem when flanking opportunities on many of the popular maps are very limited? Can't there be some way of encouraging players to have support units to protect the flanks of heavy tanks?

There only 4 doctrines reliant on heavy tanks (Armor, TH, Terror and BK). Armor already has the capability to protect it's flanks in spades. TH very often only gets picked in wide open maps to take advantage of their units so defending against flanking is often a moot point for them. That really leaves only Terror and BK that would be receiving a negative impact from flanking and only on maps where flanking is feasible. Surely there is a way of tailoring a suitable solution for those two?


Warhawks97 wrote:
MarKr wrote:On the other hand there are sources such as this (http://www.wardrawings.be/WW2/Files/1-V ... anther.htm) that say that Panthers drove off road at around 30km/h. Current speed of Panthers off a road is "3".
All vehicles were thus set wrong and were adjusted according to this. Any of your arguments saying that vehicles already had reaslitic speeds are thus false. Arguments where you say that you "think the speeds were fine" - are still valid because that is your oppinion and nobody can disprove that (but you need to accept that people don't need to share your oppinon) but saying that the speeds were realistic is not correct.


Ok, thx. Thats the kind of information i love.

Warhawks I know you're trying lower the temperature of things here, but that's a site that lists two secondary sources as references, both of which are no longer accessible. People complain about users of War Thunder as a reference for statistical information but at least War Thunder has undergone quite a bit of scrutiny from vocal rivet counters who dig through obscure references, which is more than what can be said for wardrawings.be which I've seen incorrect information on before.

It's really strange to see the term "off-road speed" being treated as if it was precisely defined characteristic. It's really not. If it was measured at a proving ground, it's very likely that it was tested in the worst possible conditions. The worst possible conditions are much further from the common case than the idealized case.

Also I know there is a certain backlash against certain vehicles appearing arcade like, but some of these vehicles were indeed like that. There's at least one known case of a real life trio of Cromwells easily crossing a 20 foot canal by leaping over it. I suspect those 3 Cromwells would have been sleeping with the fishes with these new speeds. (Note: I haven't tried the Beta's Cromwells but I don't think I'll be surprised).

MarKr wrote:- 101st can now upgrade M1 Garands; 2 rifles for 20ammo, possible to upgrade up to 3x (Garands with same stats as Rangers have - shoot slower but more accurately and with slightly higher chance to one-shot infantry)

It seems a little strange to have them upgrade to M1 Garands. Why not let them have an option to upgrade to the 30 round magazines and or automatic fire capable M1carbines that were introduced late war? From what I've read, it seems they had better availability than the also very late war recoilless rifle that comes standard on 101st squads. This way Rangers and Airborne would retain their current distinctness.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2537
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby MarKr » 22 May 2018, 22:33

drivebyhobo wrote:I think many posters in the topic including myself came away with that expectation that there was to be a few minor tweaks and then it would be pushed to live. I don't think that was an unreasonable conclusion to reach based on the recent past.
Well, yeah but I wrote in the first post of this topic:
MarKr wrote:There is a lot to test and we will try to update the beta at least once per week to address issues that will pop up (if needed). Most of these changes are possible to adjust if there is a good reason for them.
Maybe it was a bit missleading? It seemed clear to me.

drivebyhobo wrote:If that's the reason, then why is the team so wedded to the idea of a radical vehicle speed change that deeply cuts across all 12 doctrines?
Because the rear penetration buffs don't apply on tanks of Allies vs Axis - it works both ways. So Pershings, Jumbos, Churchills, SP - all of that is easier to penetrate from the rear too. This means that it affects the gameplay of all docs, not just some. And yes, "flanking" should be rewarding if there is ever to be an option to face heavy tanks with a number of lighter ones. Keep in mind that "rear" shot is in the game actually "hit of rear half of a vehicle". So the speed reductions help to stay the heavy tanks alive - once more: the current speeds will be changed, vehicles will NOT be slower than infantry.

drivebyhobo wrote:I haven't tried the Beta's Cromwells but I don't think I'll be surprised
They are ofcourse slower than they used to be but they are still one of the fastest tanks in the game.

drivebyhobo wrote:It seems a little strange to have them upgrade to M1 Garands. Why not let them an option to upgrade to the 30 round magazines that were introduced late war? From what I've read, it seems they had better availability than the also very late war recoilless rifle that comes standard on 101st squads. This way Rangers and Airborne would retain their current distinctness.
The intention of these changes (in conjunction to the M1 Carbine changes) is to give 101st more differentiated loadout options. The basic M1 Carbines should now work similarly to Riflemen Garands (shoot fast with low accuracy; due to higher RoF more effective at closer ranges). The Garands work same as Ranger Garands - lower RoF but higher accuracy, so better for mid-long range fights. Johnsons act same as before, add more firepower. Also it is not like paratroopers did not use Garands. What is so weird about the upgrade option for them?
Image

User avatar
Henny
Posts: 125
Joined: 02 Aug 2016, 04:30

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Henny » 23 May 2018, 02:15

SAY NO TO NEEDLESSLY CHANGING VEHICLE SPEEDS !

Mods don't even play BK mod PvP and they're changing vehicle speeds cmon mayne
Dankman is a good guy

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1364
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby kwok » 23 May 2018, 03:28

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2435

Henny wrote:Is there anything on the axis side that is able to stop these behemoths? For example, what can you do against greyhounds, staghounds, recces, dingos, and all that bullshit when all you have are retarded anti tank crews and 28mm PZB paper thin door knocker? Ever since the PAK nerf they just zoom past the enemy lines into your rear performing soviet deep operations and then you just lose the damn game because your resources are denied. THE METAGAME IS CURRENTLY LIGHT VEHICLES LADIES AND GENTLEMEN SPAM THEM AND WIN THE GAME :evil: :evil: :evil:

Edit: If you say get anti-tank crews, then you'd be wrong as well because they get ANNIHILATED BY STAGHOUND CANNISTER ROUND before they can even go into ambush. You can't get STUG or Hetzer either because the enemy light vehicles have denied your fuel.

Summary

RIP Paks, RIP BK MOD
If you play brits or allies you win the moment your greyhound by-passes the retarded enemy PAK

User avatar
Henny
Posts: 125
Joined: 02 Aug 2016, 04:30

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Henny » 23 May 2018, 04:04

kwok wrote:http://forum.bkmod.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2435

Henny wrote:Is there anything on the axis side that is able to stop these behemoths? For example, what can you do against greyhounds, staghounds, recces, dingos, and all that bullshit when all you have are retarded anti tank crews and 28mm PZB paper thin door knocker? Ever since the PAK nerf they just zoom past the enemy lines into your rear performing soviet deep operations and then you just lose the damn game because your resources are denied. THE METAGAME IS CURRENTLY LIGHT VEHICLES LADIES AND GENTLEMEN SPAM THEM AND WIN THE GAME :evil: :evil: :evil:

Edit: If you say get anti-tank crews, then you'd be wrong as well because they get ANNIHILATED BY STAGHOUND CANNISTER ROUND before they can even go into ambush. You can't get STUG or Hetzer either because the enemy light vehicles have denied your fuel.

Summary

RIP Paks, RIP BK MOD
If you play brits or allies you win the moment your greyhound by-passes the retarded enemy PAK


Why can't the dev's limit the movement speed changes to these ferrari light vehicles then? Is it because they really have no experience in PvP other than watching replays? Why is everything getting nerfed in terms of movement speed? What's going to happen to Churchills? Are slugs and tortoises going to beat them in races? Are volks simply going to walk up to them and molotov their engines? What about Heavy tanks like the Jagdtiger and KT's? Riflemen just going to walk up to them and slap a sticky and walk away? Rename this mod to COH: WW1 Mod: Trench warfare
Dankman is a good guy

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1364
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby kwok » 23 May 2018, 05:26

I mean.... the rest of the thread answers your questions.... you weren’t the first to ask....

But if you are like all the other overcomplaining non-reading just complaining participants on the forum, here’s probably the most summarized version that answers your question

MarKr wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:But gameplay wise that would be the death for BK bc everything would really look like we are playing a slow motion mod of coh.
The infantry speeds cannot be brought down, there is already too many sources of damage that can kill infantry in seconds. So yeah, slowing infantry is not viable option.

But as Wolf said - this will be adjusted vehicles will be able to keep up with infantry.
Why is everyone acting like this is release build? :?



Again the most summarized after pages and pages of complaining and ignored explaining.

For the record, infantry literally already can catch up and slap a Molotov or sticky on a JT/Churchill/other meant to be slow heavies... players had no problem defending against that before with either some sort of skillful coverage or initially good positioning of the targeted tank. Unless you’re suggesting that for the most part Churchills and JTs were always relying on their mobility to begin with.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1364
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby kwok » 23 May 2018, 05:44

One of the things I mentioned in my original vehicle speed proposal was being worried about handheld AT. I don’t think this was looked at when making changes this patch? I know I didn’t provide a solution my first time around. I honestly still don’t have a good answer. Wondering if there were ideas floating among the devs to discuss among PvP players now rather than later.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 335
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby mofetagalactica » 23 May 2018, 08:28

I know that you're not up to add new models, but what about adding "AT boys" for WH didn't they had the Solothurn S-18-100 anti-tank rifle in the war?
It is possible to just add the gun to a 2 man german squad and somehow copy/paste the stats of the "boys" ?

Maybe even as a reward unit or not.

User avatar
autraymond
Posts: 21
Joined: 16 Sep 2015, 15:04
Location: Austria

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby autraymond » 23 May 2018, 13:29

Didn't thought Riflenades needed the change (imo they were just fine/ risk-reward for the extended range) but if they now hit more often, especially garrisoned inf is just fine.

Arty changes are great! :D

The Medium gun changes, i still need to get some more games going, but taking whats written here it seems like a good change.
I find the Vehicle speeds really slow, i'll wait for the next beta for full feedback also probably with feedback about the medium guns.

Some suggestion:
- Add hold position to Airborne Pathfinders as kwok already said
- Tweak BK Doc 37mm HT HE against Vehicles, it just kills greyhounds & Stuart quite easily with HE not sure about recce. Also it costs only 15ammo to switch to permanent HE mode same as Crommwell (maybe increase or let them upgrade for HE fire like Shermans?)

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 594
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Shanks » 23 May 2018, 13:52

I just wanted to say, that I am one of the best bk players, good luck with the balance by the way....also, I love when everyone is arguing, and then a player is blocked by panzerblitz1

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 594
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Shanks » 23 May 2018, 16:14

Panzerblitz1 wrote:Insults will not be tolerated anymore, towards players, towards devs, zero tolerance, period, i see you in one Month Seha, i hope you'll be smarter then.

*Just a little reminder here for those who still don't understand how bk mod team is working... We are working as a team, means when we decide to add something new to the mod, its the ENTIRE WHOLE TEAM decision, not just a team member who suddenly going nuts, it is not because you see one team member more often on the forum than others that its the one who rule the bk world, its just the one who is ENOUGH KIND TO RESPOND AND TAKING TIME FOR YOU, you see how rewarding it could be...

Also a very important thing regarding Tiger talk, and questioning the team authority regarding what he called "leadership" and "ownership", this two words means poo, Xalibur the original leader and creator of bk mod and our friend who retired from the modding world gave us the baby at 100%, so to make it clear once for all, BK mod is owned by the BK team mod, in a more simple word, US, and exclusively developed by the BK team.

There is no BS leadership/ownership whatever you call it, this is again a pure invention/speculation to sit on something subversive regarding our work or on devs members credibility.

Im also extremely dispointed by some players here, this is a experimental beta test patch, meaning the normal bk is absolutely available if you don't want to help us, but more i see the reactions here, more i feel disgusted, really disgusted, we are trying something new thinking the bk community will help, and what we got? frustrations, anger, insults, provocations, that is NOT cool and will be remenbered, and you F know me, im not here to make friends.




great, hey old, I VALUED A LOT OF WORK OF DEVELOPERS, but, here they are talking to you "pro players of bk", tiger is not my friend, you can see him in steam ... but really, I think they spent a little time this time .... I KNOW, I UNDERSTAND, THE WORK THAT THEY DO IS HARD, NOBODY SAYS THE CONTRARY, I KNOW IT IS NOT FUNNY TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO, BECAUSE THEY WORKED HARD TO TEST THE RESULTS, but they changed the game too much, right now the game is almost 100% to be played ..... then you ask ... so they touched the speed of the vehicles if they were fine ???? ... it's something too delicate ... I'm not going to explain at this moment why I say this (because if I did I would write a book), I hope others have done it ... you can do whatever they want from bk mod, because you handle it ..... but for another part, should give more credit to old players of bk., we are talking about people who play over 3000 hours, and are the best of BK, the mod they are developing, we only ask for balance in the game, not that everything starts from 0 .... if you do not know those who play this game very well, and in my opinion they can suggest here, I can give you a list, if you want

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 23 May 2018, 17:52

Shanks, i understand what you’re saying, im not blocking anyone here, i just don’t want players making threats, and behave (again) like imbeciles on our very hard work to improve the game, all good things and ideas coming from players has been implemented when it was discussed in proper manners.
This is an experimental beta test, i also do believe for exemple like all the Bk team that the game is currently too slow with some units, BUT this experimental beta (again) is a big work in progress and has nothing to do with a tomorrow release, we aren't dumb, but we need to start somewhere concerning some speed datas and evaluate it with PVP games.
Image

User avatar
Kr0noZ
Global Moderator
Posts: 248
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 06:20
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Kr0noZ » 23 May 2018, 21:52

Alright, to cut short the debate about bans and get back to the subject of this whole affair:
I got around to meddling with the beta for a few days now, and somehow I'm feeling a little split.

Most of the changes are actually very nice and feel somewhat balanced, probably the result of some of the preparatory musings in the internal section that went into the test before it was even made.
However, there's as always a BUT...

Most players have complained immediately about one of the most obvious things in this beta, the vehicle speeds.
I have tried out various scenarios and in general, slower speeds help in combined arms tactics by making it easier to keep units operating as a group, without some faster units needing constant management to preven them from speeding away. But this current setting just overkilled on this parameter (I know I'm not the first to point this out, but I feel confident in attaching some numbers to that assessment).

The problem is actually two-fold:
1. Speeds on roads are actually not that far off from what I feel would be "adequate, albeit a little slow", but speeds in regular terrain are PAINFULLY slow, especially for some of the heavier units; this is unfortunately an issue with the design of most maps (very little roads in most cases), but I feel like this should be accounted for by goiung slightly higher in general in order to not make units uselessly immobile if the map has few or no actual roads.
2. Speed differences between units feel less drastic now, however in some cases speed is the whole point why a unit is useful (scout car, daimler, jeep, hellcat) because if it weren't there's nothing another unit can't do better - so less performance-delta is actually a nerf instead of just a scaling-down. These effects have mostly been accounted for, but might warrant looking at again.

My conclusion:
I'd estimate an at least 25% increase over the current off-road speed, maybe 10 % over current on-road speed should be a good starting point for the next round of tests
"Normal people belive... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Engineers believe... if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet."
- Scott Adams

User avatar
Henny
Posts: 125
Joined: 02 Aug 2016, 04:30

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Henny » 23 May 2018, 23:51

Kr0noZ wrote:Alright, to cut short the debate about bans and get back to the subject of this whole affair:
I got around to meddling with the beta for a few days now, and somehow I'm feeling a little split.

Most of the changes are actually very nice and feel somewhat balanced, probably the result of some of the preparatory musings in the internal section that went into the test before it was even made.
However, there's as always a BUT...

Most players have complained immediately about one of the most obvious things in this beta, the vehicle speeds.
I have tried out various scenarios and in general, slower speeds help in combined arms tactics by making it easier to keep units operating as a group, without some faster units needing constant management to preven them from speeding away. But this current setting just overkilled on this parameter (I know I'm not the first to point this out, but I feel confident in attaching some numbers to that assessment).

The problem is actually two-fold:
1. Speeds on roads are actually not that far off from what I feel would be "adequate, albeit a little slow", but speeds in regular terrain are PAINFULLY slow, especially for some of the heavier units; this is unfortunately an issue with the design of most maps (very little roads in most cases), but I feel like this should be accounted for by goiung slightly higher in general in order to not make units uselessly immobile if the map has few or no actual roads.
2. Speed differences between units feel less drastic now, however in some cases speed is the whole point why a unit is useful (scout car, daimler, jeep, hellcat) because if it weren't there's nothing another unit can't do better - so less performance-delta is actually a nerf instead of just a scaling-down. These effects have mostly been accounted for, but might warrant looking at again.

My conclusion:
I'd estimate an at least 25% increase over the current off-road speed, maybe 10 % over current on-road speed should be a good starting point for the next round of tests


Hopefully this patch rolls out soon, I want to play a WW1 COH mod as soon as possible
Dankman is a good guy

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 465
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Jalis » 24 May 2018, 00:31

Henny wrote: What about Heavy tanks like the Jagdtiger and KT's?


historical/realist data ; 10 km/h was usual cross country speed for a Tiger. It was probably less for a Ferdinand ; A walking man speed. All Of that on terrain MarKr displayed with photo in this post.

However beta test just started. I tried it, despite I m not a public for that. I think some or most vehicles cross country speed would be raised in futur beta versions. (so probably for final release)

Now,you probably work hard to test all of that to deliver valuables propositions.
Otherwise you can use the easy/lazy way ; remove this shit and gave us back Vcoh value... But I m sure you can do better.

User avatar
Henny
Posts: 125
Joined: 02 Aug 2016, 04:30

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Henny » 24 May 2018, 07:18

kwok wrote:I mean.... the rest of the thread answers your questions.... you weren’t the first to ask....

But if you are like all the other overcomplaining non-reading just complaining participants on the forum, here’s probably the most summarized version that answers your question

MarKr wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:But gameplay wise that would be the death for BK bc everything would really look like we are playing a slow motion mod of coh.
The infantry speeds cannot be brought down, there is already too many sources of damage that can kill infantry in seconds. So yeah, slowing infantry is not viable option.

But as Wolf said - this will be adjusted vehicles will be able to keep up with infantry.
Why is everyone acting like this is release build? :?



Again the most summarized after pages and pages of complaining and ignored explaining.

For the record, infantry literally already can catch up and slap a Molotov or sticky on a JT/Churchill/other meant to be slow heavies... players had no problem defending against that before with either some sort of skillful coverage or initially good positioning of the targeted tank. Unless you’re suggesting that for the most part Churchills and JTs were always relying on their mobility to begin with.


Of course, if infantry can already slap a molotov on Churchill's/Jt's and other slow heavies before the patch what do you think is going to happen after the decreased tank movement speed patch? You're going to have mobile fortresses moving 2 km/h on rough terrain. The moment your infantry get driven away/suppressed by a well placed MG42/MG, Airstrike/strafe, mortar/arty strike, your tanks are now sitting ducks. Watch your failed vehicle move across the terrain like the germans in shitty russian autumn mud. It would be better for the crew to just bail and run away than die in these slow ass WW1 vehicles
Dankman is a good guy

Walderschmidt
Posts: 117
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Walderschmidt » 24 May 2018, 07:38

Some thoughts (haven't extensively played through the beta game)

1) Why not give vehicles their old speeds back on roads (proper, roads)? Given how few there and how specific they are, it may add an interesting dynamic to the game where roads are important to get vehicles to the front quicker, but then also players expect that and often place mines there.

2) I haven't used flank speed much but from my perspective it looks like it's the same speed. How about instead of an ability that lasts for 20-30 seconds, you have a 5-10 second real speed burst? Enough to get in the action, but not enough to also zip away.

3) The rocket nerfs sadden me because I love the cheap, OP hotchkiss. But also they gave me an erection because I think they're back to how they should be; namely, anti-infantry/anti-static, not anti-tank.

4) Make it so infantry get aut0-run over by eny vehicles? I could see someone totally jamming their volks in the buns of a freshly deployed Superpershing to jam it up in time for someone to bring big guns to the fore.

5) Hotchkisses were already slow as balls. Now they are slow as old man balls. No erection here (mostly I'm just a hotchkiss fanboi).

I look forward to the next version of this experimental patch.

L,
Wald

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Warhawks97 » 24 May 2018, 12:40

@Henny. I am a bit confused. In one topic you complained about devil cars which btw can be well countered by Puma with 50 mm gun (i get it always when opponent is kind of vehicle spammer). And A Puma with 20 mm could passes a so called retarded Pak even better than Greyhound.
My question would be: Do you want changes on speeds or dont you want any at all?

@kwok: My issue is not that churchills cant be catched by infantry or heavies in general cant run away that simply. My issue is that those with heavier armor and big guns are again big winners. When vehicles and lighter tanks and medium tanks which efficiency is heavily depening on speed and the ability to escape trouble cant do that anymore whats their point then? So armor and firepower is again the only real thing that matters on the battlefield.
Also the "mobile mechanized" part is cut away when inf on foot reaches the target location faster as when being put on something that has an engine.

Yes, we dont need ferrari cars but then we have to remove flank speed abilties as well. But we also dont need infantry to be the most mobile and fastest part of the army.


@Kronoz:
Well, a few units did need micro to stay in line.
But we havent got a better scenario now, it just turned the other way arround. Your inf is always going twice as fast into combat than a average medium tank. That isnt right either.

When Jalis said, that a KT was offroad 10 kph and thus as fast as a soldier can walk, why do we have made infantry walking three times as fast as a KT now? And why are even heavy weapon platforms like mortars, HMG´s and AT guns in particular untouched?

Just bc we want units "going together into combat" it shouldnt mean we should make them all churchill like to stay in line with infantry movment.

As i said, things have to keep in relation. I am not really fixed to one side. "Racing cars" are just as wrong as "churchill reconassaince vehicles".

As Kronoz said, we got an "overkill here", but as autraymond said, lets wait for the next beta that comes hopefully soon. I really cant await alone for seeing the new arty and guns (range, rof).
Markrs words that vehicles "will NOT be slower than infantry" makes me very confident for the next patch.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 465
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: 5.1.5 beta version

Postby Jalis » 24 May 2018, 15:45

Warhawks97 wrote:When Jalis said, that a KT was offroad 10 kph and thus as fast as a soldier can walk, why do we have made infantry walking three times as fast as a KT now?


It is not as simple. Soldiers never walk at coh, they run. Add to that, except after a sprint, they are never tired, like tanks never ran out fuel whatever they are static all game or patrol the map 3 hours long.

Find a balance would not be so obvious. Many realistic parameters are missing. Even subjective opinion about what is entertaining in the game, could be formatted by years of habits.


Return to “Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest