Beta 5.1.5 v5

[Krieger Blitzer]

Let me correct this part:

You have been wanting more range for the tiger even before this beta appeared

I have been wanting the Tiger1 not act like racing cars with flank speed, in return for earlier ALRS (basically more range, in form of an ability) yes.

That's a totally different subject though.. now we discuss the beta changes in this regard, which are concerning all heavy tanks.. not just the Tiger1.

[MenciusMoldbug]

This is kind of off-topic but @Markr can you take a look at the Comet's upkeep?

I remember there being a patch that made the Comet's upkeep way higher than it was before, but that was when it had it's super strong armor that could bounce shrecks and 88 shells. Now that it's a cheaper tank with cromwell armor; I think it's still using it's old upkeep values for when it was a pershing on steroids:

[MarKr]

I don't understand the reasoning here. First we hear examples of how 75mm units can mess up Tigers and because of these specific examples all heavies need more range. Then we hear that there must be a glitch of some sort because of which a lot of front hits actually count as rear hits but it would be OK as long as heavies get more range. And now we hear again that heavies (this time talking about heavies in general) are simply weak as consequence of the rear pen.increase but more range will solve the problem even if the pen.chances stay as they are now and in case they woukd be OP, then the solution is not to bring the ranges down but rather increase the rear pen.even more...I am really confused with this sort of argumentation

Anyway, this stays. It is a big change and people haven't had enough time to adapt to changes and still might struggle finding the new meta. It makes no sense to revert the changes after only a few hours of testing and a negative feedback from one player. The concept is solid - when you invest resources to building several medium tanks and then use your micro to flank a single, unsupported heavy tank, then you should have chance to win - this applies to axis too. We only need to further tweak the pen.chances of certain guns vs certain targets to make the concept properly ballanced.

@MenciusMoldbug: I'll have a look at it, you are probably right.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Despite that I have repeatedly pointed at the main argument several times.. yet, I'm amazed that it was still confusing or somehow unseen!

Overall, heavy tanks are only weaker in the beta.. compared to the current official version.
Reload got increased, sight range got reduced, and rear is now weaker... Only +5 more basic range in return DOES NOT compensate with all these.
So for heavy tanks; these are 3 nerf and only 1 small buff.

For the super heavy tanks... Such as KT and SP, now they have 10-11 seconds reload (used to be 5-6 seconds), also weaker rear.. and less sight range.
Aaaand? Even no range buff just.. nothing. Almost double the reload time, and no range buff.. not even +5 more range like heavy tanks.

Not to mention that I never said there was a glitch, as I only stated that usually it's easier to score rear hits on moving tanks.. specifically throughout a real PvP scenario, action often requires enemy tanks to keep relocating themselves every now and then.

>>> The idea was to increase the basic range of heavy tanks while in return increasing their reload time <<<

What happened in the beta however, wasn't just that!
The rear armor also became weaker, and sight range was dramatically reduced by removing scope upgrades as well, which I'm not against btw.

Nonetheless, I'm just totally convinced now that the current range increase prior to the other changes implemented.. is simply not sufficient.
The range increase of just +5 to heavy tanks, and "NOTHING" for super heavy tanks despite increasing the reload times to almost DOUBLE the original reload time value, which means that the rate of fire is now half as it used to be.. is simply so downgrading.

Clearly; the current range bonus is not enough, as it does not compensate with the other drawbacks combined...
That's because the current range bonus is very minimal.

So, the primary argument once again.. just in case;
Heavy tanks (Tiger1, Pershing) received 3 nerfs on different aspects, with only 1 small buff in return.
And super heavy tanks (KT, SP) received the same nerfs as heavy tanks, but even absolutely nothing in return...

Thus, I kinda wonder what the new meta is going to be... I can only see that heavy tanks are gradually being excluded from any serious games.

[MarKr]

Heavies were most of the time nobrainers and people tried to get them as fast as possible. This was because these units were very good: medium tanks couldn't usually do jack against them and the only real counter to them were enemy heavies or late-game offmap abilities (arty/planes). We want to change it and make mediums useful (even though in numbers) even in late game.
It hasn't eluded me that you base your entire argument on few situations you experienced which are not even what happens every time but rather something that happens quite rarely. Also the examples had heavies in them not super heavies, and yet you extend the suggestions to all super heavies too.
Let me use an analogy. Let's say that heavy unit has some "usefulness index" of "10". We want to make mediums more useful in late game by lowering the heavies index to "7" so we give them "3 nerfs and one small buff", now they are at "7". What you want to do is give them "3 nerfs and one big buff" so they would be at "8.5" or "9". Super heavies were at "13", now they're at "11". Our idea for heavies is not 9 it is 7. We know that the unit will now need a support from one or two units of some lower index, but that is intention - to make them require a bit more support instead of operationg vastly independently. While you want to keep them more or less the way they were before.
Now don't start to nitpick the analogy and index numbers, it is just an example.

We want to wait for feedback from other players and see if they see it as a problem too.

So yes, it is noted that you would preffer a different approach. It is taken into consideration. But I have to say that repeating it over and over will not make us more likely to do stuff the way you want.

This is (because of the things prevously mentioned) for the time being my last comment on this matter.

[kwok]

I'm really enjoying the new beta, had a game or two yesterday didn't find any glaring bugs. I'm pretty much in agreement with mencius when it comes to the new AT squad.

Would it be fine to tune the speeds for the slightly down a bit more? I know the intent is to not feel too much difference, but i feel the adjustment also made no meaningful change in gameplay in that I was still able to blitz past AT guns. But, it could also be a factor of people I was playing against and AT guns not best placed. I think elpiojo was actually posting from our previous game on the beta and we were able to just fly past all their at guns... maybe only 1 shot ever going off from the AT guns.

[elpiojoxp]

About the new AT rifle:

1. AT grenade has it's descripion put in the title instead of name when u hover mouse on it.
2. It has huge fire rate and almost no aim time, feels like 2x faster than boys and 2 squads kill anything instantly. 1 sec aim time allows you to rush anything and kill with almost 100% chance of success
3. It kills 1hp tanks, even with standart grenade. I finished off a pershing with it.
4. U can kill crew of mg nest from safe distance with 4 he grenades, Quad is decrewed with 1 He shot
5. If u fire any of grenades at fast moving target it bends reality and turns in the air to hit the target (well its the engine I know... its more like graphic bug but still I feel like I should mention it)
6. It kills all hts and light tanks (scott, chaffie) with 2 standard shots, pretty op for first tier unit, it makes 50mm pak obsoloete. It's not only an exchange for pak 37mm, it's strong early game buff. Just like boys make all PE cars useless, this rifle does the same to allies. Moreover it has bigger range than any MG and anti inf weapons like crusader. That means it's like sniper AT. Too strong imo for 240 mp.
7. Smoke grenade is very inaccurate, lands too close, stops on obstacles etc.
8. AT grenade does big damage to inf, even better than he grenade, it kills trenches in 4 shots and inf inside easily.
9. It doesnt have vehicle fire priority, it rather shoot at buidlings
10. Damage vs CW trucks is too high. It does shreck level of damage, u need 12 shots to kill full hp truck. 1 shot every 5 seconds means that with 2 squads u kill a truck in half a minute. Again too op.

I subscribe all what this guy said. And I also add, why WH "need" that unit? and its not like a pak36, because this unit can fire 360 grades, not need to rotate like pak, so, vehicles cant flank the unit, M8 its almost 1 shooted by that unit and by a long range. They are very strong against riflemans, 2 squads kills a hole rifleman squad withouth a single loose! and they supoused to be at squad not antiinf squad. And able to kill even a pershing?? well, thats going crazy, cant see where is the point there. I think the mod its more balanced than ever, now balanced teams can have epic games, please just dont mess it up, Im agree middle tanks must have a bigger use in game, even against heavies when they can flank them and the new MG squad config all behind the cover its great.

Regards

[MarKr]

And I also add, why WH "need" that unit?

They did not "need it". However we got the chance to implement this weapon and there was potential for it to change the meta.
We know that meta-changing patches are not the most favorite for some players because their learned tactics then often are not as effective as before and adapting to the changes is often something they don't want to do because it is easier to cry for reverting the changes.

However, it is not that rare that players lose interest inthe game because the meta is the same for ages and so there is nothing new for the in the game and it becomes boring to them. So ocassionally a patch that changes some ground elements is needed too. In such case it can be expected that the new thing will not be balanced and that is why we release it to beta first, get feedback from players (the more the better) and balance it accordingly.

As for the infantry killing power - 2 squads cost 480MP which is more than one squad of Riflemen, on top of that the PaK36 has the HE ability which was able to kill off an infantry squad easily. But the squas has some advantages over PaK36 so we could bring nerf the Kar98s to be less effective.

[Warhawks97]

Ok, back to AT rifle topic and the question "how deadly shall they be"?

Markr, you said something like lowering accuracy at light vehicles on the move so that its just a "60 %suicide to drive in range".

I thought about it and got something in my mind.


1. What if Boys AT wont oneshot schwimmwagens (and WH AT squad to Bren/dingo/armored jeep) but instead dealing like 90% damage and chances of crits? That way the recon vehicle keeps in game, but is taken out of combat for the early stage. Axis can brings Pios and thus more rifles to the front or repairs. Both sides benefit from it. AT rifles did their job while building like schwimm wouldnt be totally pointless and subject of the RNG god.
2. AT rifles should i think fail 60% of the times hitting moving schwimm/jeep/dingo/bren. Why? These units are only effective killers while standing still. So if they want to kill something, they get killed by the AT rifles as they must stop moving. As long as they move they arent a real threat bc of low accuracy and they have no turret. So again AT rifles did their job as protectors without becoming hunters. The Scout vehicles could do their scouting job afterall. That excludes the PE scout car bc it takes 2-3 hits already (as well as recce when it will require 3-4 hits to die) and having a turret which enables it to drive past and shoot at once.


question? Why does that squad needs 4 men with the fourth having a MP 40?

[MarKr]

@Hawks:
1) I was thinking about some combination of damage and crit chances too. It would be hard to set 90% damage due to different HP values of those scout units as well as different armor types on them which iirc in some case shared with other units too.

2) I am not sure if this would work - you could make them drive, let the BOYS try their luck, shoot in case they miss you use the reload time to your advantage, drive up close and kill them (or force them to retreat).

If there was some change to happen in this matter, I would preffer the first option, unless some better idea is given by someone else.

Answer. It got 4 men because they have no camo and so it was pressumed that they would be easier target and have potential for dieing quite fast, one extra men should be sufficient to compensate. MP40 is there to provide some anti-infantry protection which early AT squads have (in terms of HE abilities/canister shots), it was also presumed that due to no camo, the squad would be very prone (even more that other early AT squads) to infantry rushes. But the other two dudes have Kar98s so they could get a weaker version of that gun to bring the anti-infantry capacity lower.

[Warhawks97]

@Hawks:
1) I was thinking about some combination of damage and crit chances too. It would be hard to set 90% damage due to different HP values of those scout units as well as different armor types on them which iirc in some case shared with other units too.

sounds good.

2) I am not sure if this would work - you could make them drive, let the BOYS try their luck, shoot in case they miss you use the reload time to your advantage, drive up close and kill them (or force them to retreat).

Well, usually they stay in cover and from max range it takes a while with vehicle mgs to kill the squad. I doubt anyone would risk it once spotting a squad. Also brits stay quite often invisible so there its less an issue. Driving closer would increase the change to get hit+ rifle hits would have reduced the HP already which makes it dying instant from the first hit anyway then. So driving closer wouldnt be an option at all so far. Accuracy, increases, damage from rifles, high risk of a loss, hidden/cover for the inf, rifles rof increases the closer the vehicle gets. So in all thats unlikely to happen i would say.

If there was some change to happen in this matter, I would preffer the first option, unless some better idea is given by someone else.
Answer. It got 4 men because they have no camo and so it was pressumed that they would be easier target and have potential for dieing quite fast, one extra men should be sufficient to compensate. MP40 is there to provide some anti-infantry protection which early AT squads have (in terms of HE abilities/canister shots), it was also presumed that due to no camo, the squad would be very prone (even more that other early AT squads) to infantry rushes. But the other two dudes have Kar98s so they could get a weaker version of that gun to bring the anti-infantry capacity lower.

yeah, ok. But idk about the mp40. Isnt it that to which the squad should be vulnerable? I mean PE uses storm pios and close in on brits to shred them. Do we give them stens now so that they get a chance? I might become no option to try to kill them in close combat. Upgrading rifles with grease guns and closing in should keep an option. However, adding a thrid rifle would perhaps make them too good in a ranged combat. It would be like a half volks squad. Difficult point here. 3 Rifles are no option, MP40 makes them quite usefull for all situations (ranged, close, anti vehicle), 3 men arent an option either due to the problems that would occure in terms of combat survivability.

[MEFISTO]

Can you check The New At squad vs AA emplacement! "30mm grenade"(long range, don't miss and kill all AA emplacement crew)

[MarKr]

@Hawks: and do you really believe that a single Sten would stand a chance against Sturmpios with with 2xStG44 (+ the option to get more close range guns)? The example you provide is not really a good one because brit infantry has 6 men, all of them have relatively good rifles so the composition would be 5xEnfield + 1xSten, while the current WM squad has 1xMP40 + 2xKar98(which will get a nerf most likely) so the brits would always have an advantage because if those two extra guns.
Anyway, due to Garand RoF they should be able to kill the squad when they close in. In any case you can use the Grease gun if needed.

@MEPHISTO: yes, already reported

[Mr. FeministDonut]

Yo, Mark, can we actually put 1 man more in each weapon crew to make it more interesting? Simply because of the snipers, because right now they are pain in the ass. As drawbacks, you need to reinforce one man in squad.
And I'm actually thinking about 2-men scout squad, to completly remove all those easy mp-drainers and no-brainers kills.

[Warhawks97]

Yo, Mark, can we actually put 1 man more in each weapon crew to make it more interesting? Simply because of the snipers, because right now they are pain in the ass. As drawbacks, you need to reinforce one man in squad.

worht a thought, just arent snipers there to do exactly that? What would be the build cost of the squad? same? higher?

And I'm actually thinking about 2-men scout squad, to completly remove all those easy mp-drainers and no-brainers kills.

Good idea.

[Mr. FeministDonut]

About fire teams, yes, everything would be just the same. But I don't really remember the cost of their reinforcments as it should be important here.
If it's not high already, it should be. Main sniper role is just to drain MP slowly and here that task would be accomplished

[MarKr]

Yo, Mark, can we actually put 1 man more in each weapon crew to make it more interesting? Simply because of the snipers, because right now they are pain in the ass. As drawbacks, you need to reinforce one man in squad.
And I'm actually thinking about 2-men scout squad, to completly remove all those easy mp-drainers and no-brainers kills.

What exactly is the drawback? Sure, if the squad takes casulties you need to reinforce one more man to get them to full strength, but is that really a drawback when you can decided to keep them at 3 men and not reinforce the last one? Yeah, it would be sort of counter-intuitive because people tend to reinforce the squads to full strength, but in the end it is a matter of choice. Also some squads have quite high reinforce costs...I thinkg axis HMG teams cost about 45MP to reinforce so paying 135MP to get them back to full strength could be a bit offputting for some players, especially when one mortar shot can often take down 3 soldiers.

Also weapon teams already have different number of soldiers - CW 2inch mortar has 2 men, CW 4.2inch and SE 120mm have 4 iirc, the bigger AT guns have 4 or 5 (not sure now) and especially these big AT gun crews seem to have problem seeking proper cover, because the game had originaly 3 soldiers with AT guns and if you put there more the extra dudes seem to chaotically run around seeking cover which is not there...is your request aimed only at the squads that have 2 and 3 crew members or really every weapon team?

Turning scouts into 2 men squads might be problematic too...I think it might make them harder then to fit into some smaller covers where they can fit easily as one man squads. I am also not sure now but I think that there was some problem with this when using the binocukar abilities...the one with binicular stopped and spotted stuff but the other was still able to move around freely. I am not 100% sure but I think that there was some issue like this when I tried to make this few years ago...Although back then my modding knowledge was quite low so maybe I messed something up.

I am not really for or against it though, if people agree with it I guess we can give it a try.

[The New BK Champion]

2 men spotter squad is a bad idea. Does not benefit anyhow but only makes it harder to put them in cover

[Mr. FeministDonut]

Yo, Mark, can we actually put 1 man more in each weapon crew to make it more interesting? Simply because of the snipers, because right now they are pain in the ass. As drawbacks, you need to reinforce one man in squad.
And I'm actually thinking about 2-men scout squad, to completly remove all those easy mp-drainers and no-brainers kills.

What exactly is the drawback? Sure, if the squad takes casulties you need to reinforce one more man to get them to full strength, but is that really a drawback when you can decided to keep them at 3 men and not reinforce the last one? Yeah, it would be sort of counter-intuitive because people tend to reinforce the squads to full strength, but in the end it is a matter of choice. Also some squads have quite high reinforce costs...I thinkg axis HMG teams cost about 45MP to reinforce so paying 135MP to get them back to full strength could be a bit offputting for some players, especially when one mortar shot can often take down 3 soldiers.

Also weapon teams already have different number of soldiers - CW 2inch mortar has 2 men, CW 4.2inch and SE 120mm have 4 iirc, the bigger AT guns have 4 or 5 (not sure now) and especially these big AT gun crews seem to have problem seeking proper cover, because the game had originaly 3 soldiers with AT guns and if you put there more the extra dudes seem to chaotically run around seeking cover which is not there...is your request aimed only at the squads that have 2 and 3 crew members or really every weapon team?

Turning scouts into 2 men squads might be problematic too...I think it might make them harder then to fit into some smaller covers where they can fit easily as one man squads. I am also not sure now but I think that there was some problem with this when using the binocukar abilities...the one with binicular stopped and spotted stuff but the other was still able to move around freely. I am not 100% sure but I think that there was some issue like this when I tried to make this few years ago...Although back then my modding knowledge was quite low so maybe I messed something up.

I am not really for or against it though, if people agree with it I guess we can give it a try.

Well, is there possible in code for camo, while only one member is in cover then?
I believe high reinforce cost could be lower in exchange of longer reinforce time, but I don't really know if that's really practical solution

[Warhawks97]

Reinforce is in sbps and in percentage. Like when a squad costs 300 MP and has 3 men (so one costs 100 MP in ebps) and 0.5 reinforce cost, then one men costs 50 MP. Up it to 4 men and it drops automatically to 37.5. Weapon crews have sometimes only soldiers costing something and the weapon nothing, sometimes weapon costs also some MP. Those are not counted in the reinforce system. Lets say the HMG costs 20 MP and thus squad in total 320, the reinforce cost is still at 50 then. I might be wrong, has been few months ago when i stuck in corsix doing that, but iirc thats how it works.

I also did that 2 men spotting thing. At least with hold cover it worked. I did it with the AB spotters. Idk if the usage of the ability stopped both from moving (like when explosion hits near and they want to jump into cover). I put the binocular ability in sbps. And with hold position i hadnt any trouble. But tests might be needed to find possible bugs.

[Mr. FeministDonut]

Also, really missed your question about every squad member - yes, I would see that +1 man on every weapon crew, except the british 2inch mortar, since it's already can be operatable 1 man and has camo ability which is pain in the ass. Double sniper + even more from every player on the map, concentrating them on one front making it a really deadly force

[Panzerblitz1]

Also, really missed your question about every squad member - yes, I would see that +1 man on every weapon crew, except the british 2inch mortar, since it's already can be operatable 1 man and has camo ability which is pain in the ass. Double sniper + even more from every player on the map, concentrating them on one front making it a really deadly force

Im strongly against having more crew mens on weapons, they are perfectly well balanced that way, they already do their jobs nicely, there is absolutely no need to add more strengh in mens to those units.
Also, adding more weapons crew has tendancy to stress the engine much more, the soldiers attached to the weapons have a purpose and follow the engine animation pattern logic because they were created and designed for it, the mens who are not in contact and not animated with the weapon, are running like crazy chicken, like free electrons, they don't have any game logic path and to explain in a simple way, its like the models are asking every micro seconds << should i go? the engine reply no you don't! you stay to that piece>>, mutliply that by a thousand times and you have a nice little engine stress, lags, fps loss, bugs... etc... etc...

[mofetagalactica]

Im strongly against having more crew mens on weapons, they are perfectly well balanced that way, they already do their jobs nicely, there is absolutely no need to add more strengh in mens to those units.
Also, adding more weapons crew has tendancy to stress the engine much more, the soldiers attached to the weapons have a purpose and follow the engine animation pattern logic because they were created and designed for it, the mens who are not in contact and not animated with the weapon, are running like crazy chicken, like free electrons, they don't have any game logic path and to explain in a simple way, its like the models are asking every micro seconds << should i go? the engine reply no you don't! you stay to that piece>>, mutliply that by a thousand times and you have a nice little engine stress, lags, fps loss, bugs... etc... etc...

If you're going to use that argument, can you explain me why some AT weapons are 6 man controled then?

[MarKr]

The 6-men AT guns is where we observed the lag to begin with.

[Panzerblitz1]

The 6-men AT guns is where we observed the lag to begin with.

Its unfortunate, but it is real.