Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

[lunarwolf]

arty and heavy tanks aren't the only ways to kill tanks. AT guns do a good job, the 27 pounder can penetrate anything, 76 AT will most tanks (esp the emplaced version), camoed wolverine/hellcat get damage bonuses. not to mention pershings, easy 8 etc... which all have been buffed to such an extent that they don't need to fear german heavy tanks. anyway my hull mg argument works both ways and is valid for all allied tanks as well, so axis inf can just walk up in front of them either. where is the unbalance in this. Inf doc is not the be all doc, it has specific capabilities and is meant to be used in conjunction with other team players using other docs such as armor. this is why there never have been any official 1v1 BK maps

are you SERIOUSLY telling me that flanking is not possible in this game? ROFL

I would like this mod to stay true to it's DNA and not stray back towards vcoh, just because some can't use inf docs as they were originally intended to in this mod

[Wolf]

You just don't read...

[lunarwolf]

and you just don't listen

you didn't create this mod, and it didn't become popular because of you. maybe eat some humble pie and stop treating as if it was your mod and your selected close knit friends!

[Wolf]

Why should I even reply/listen to something, if you didn't read my previous arguments?

I replied to your comment, whilist you almost completely ignored mine? And now you are telling me that I should be humble? -.- warned, I don't have to tolerate this.

And please, tell me who are my friends here... I would really like to know... maybe you know better than me! I will then move it into separate topic.

[MarKr]

Guys, just calm down... I agree with you that an infantry squad running in front of a tank while being shot at from Hull MG + coaxial MG + Turret mounted MG + main cannon and don't die nor suffer sever loses is ridiculous - I've also suggested similar stuff like you want but then I realized how badly it would affect gameplay. If all you want were to be changed in the future the game would turn into tank only since infantry would become so hard to use (once tanks had entered the field) that everyone would go for tanks asap.

Also this debate started to stop the "hit and run" performed by AT squads, however it is not possible to do that - the sprint ability plays such a role that tanks would be insta - pining (PINING not suppressing) any non-sprinting infantry. Not to mention that many squads at level 3 get swapped sprint for "Fire up" ability which cancels suppression completely.

Furthermore someone suggested not to give a big buff to these MGs but only to buff them to level similar to what Schwimm/Jeep curently have - if we ignore the fact that it, again, wouldn't stop the "hit and run" these vehicles can tear appart infantry already. Now immagine that M4 Sherman is equipped with TWO of them (actually any sherman except Croc has two iirc) + Turret MG + HE mode on the main gun. Jeep/Schwimm/Bike are at least vulnerable to small arms fire, tanks are immune what would that lead to? More AT guns in the field, maybe even more arty...

As I said the situation of tanks not shreding infantry without cover is ridiculous from the point of view of reality but I since I have some experience with buffed MGs from my version, I don't really believe that it would improve gameplay...

[lunarwolf]

lol a warning because I don't agree with you making unilateral decisions on a mod you have not even created or involved in making in the first place. you have got to be kidding! with this attitude, only thing you will be responsible for is killing this mod. this is my warning to you .

[MarKr]

Has anybody else noticed that quite often when somebody demands some changes in the mod and the proposal gets denied, they start saying stuff like "OK whatever, you're gonna kill this mod" or "This mod is dead anyway" oh just come on...

Also hull/coaxial MG crappy effectiveness is an obvious thing - I would say it is not an oversight. Since you speak about the original mod team, have you ever thought about the possibility they didn't make these MGs effective for a reason?

[Wolf]

lol a warning because I don't agree with you making unilateral decisions on a mod you have not even created or involved in making in the first place. you have got to be kidding! with this attitude, only thing you will be responsible for is killing this mod. this is my warning to you .

You got warning for this - "stop treating as if it was your mod and your selected close knit friends!" Not for disagreeing with tank mgs or other changes.
I don't have to reply to you, for any reason, but my current reason was simply because you wrote something, without reading (or understanding) what I wrote before. That doesn't make me "not humble" or whatever and it does not give right to insult me. If you don't understand this, then its your problem, not mine.
Funny thing btw, before community patch, mod was on Open Beta for xy months and player numbers were decreasing, you could have seen it very clearly then around 0-2 max lobbys when at same time now you can see around 4-6. So I consider it funny telling me now about killing the mod, when it has more players then in 4.xx < 4.8 years. And you should even count additional factors, like players moving to CoH2, another games etc.

[lunarwolf]

that isn't an insult or profane in any way. it's the truth, you didn't create this mod.

as for the number of ppl playing the mod there is no real way to tell since you don't get that info. steam or relic would be the ones who have those figures. all I know is before there were a lot more ppl playing you could see it in the lobby - u had to scroll down the page and not just a couple of games being played like currently. I grant you that a lot of players were lost in the initial "relaunch" migration to steam and CoH2 has further reduced these numbers.

but your arguments about breaking balance are nonsensical because this infantry taking on tanks frontally holds true for both allied/axis players. anyway this all came to light when you decided to make jeep suppression ridiculous whereas tank with a lot more firepower can't. it's arbitrary and I haven't been the only one voicing my opinion that a tank should be able to as well then. this is where the imbalance is.

[Wolf]

Again, you did not read. Why should I continue talking to you, when you just "modify" things I said so it suits you and ignore stuff we say?
Jeep having that much suppression was more like a bug, and you again continue with your "when you decided to make jeep suppression ridiculous". STOP your offensive behaviour.

If you have read my or MarKr's arguments, you would know why telling us that "this infantry taking on tanks frontally holds true for both allied/axis players" argument is just not valid, because its totally not about that.

[MarKr]

This debate went off the topic and then into a loop btw...
It started as "Hit and run" tactics is silly and stupid blablabla...
Response was "Cannot be solved because of the Sprint ability features"
From which it went to "So all infantry should die when runing in front of a tank."
We said it would cause imbalance.
You guys keep persisting it would not.
(now last two points run in circle)

Also:

but your arguments about breaking balance are nonsensical because this infantry taking on tanks frontally holds true for both allied/axis players

This is not about the Axis-Allies balance, it is more about "unit" balance in the sense of "balance between infantry and vehicles", imo.

I will try to be a little constructive here...
Let's say we would buff the hull/coaxial MGs (please note that I used conditional sentence ). The main problem remains AT squads which could ignore the buff anyway because of the "Sprint" ability. So logical conclusion would be to remove "sprint" from AT squads (to solve the problem and also because like really...for how long could the soldiers sprint with Schrecks or zookas anyway?). Then the MGs could be buffed maybe to the state of said Jeep/Schwimm. However, since this change would be intoduced to prevent infantry running in front of tanks without cover, I would still insist on severe nerfs against infantry in cover and lower range. Let's say:
Light cover: accuracy -75%, damage -30%, suppression -60%
Heavy cover: accuracy -85%, damage -70%, suppression -95%
Also the accuracy while the tank is moving should go down.

However there would still remain the possibility to get to tank and fire the AT before the infantry gets killed/ suppressed. We could add the aim time so they would most possibly get suppressed before shooting without cover. Nevertheless with its current range the hand held ATs could still out range the MGs so we would need to lower its range or make them less accurate at max ranges. Note however that this would also turn AT squads to defensive units mostly since their use in offense would be suicidal (maybe in cities they would have some chance). So players would rely more on AT guns (I can remember someone complaining that in the game AT guns lurk "behind every corner" so the situation would be even worse after this I guess).

We would also have to solve what to do with picked up ATs - should the squad which picks an AT also lose the Sprint ability? If yes, AB/luft units would suffer quite a lot from this. And I'm sure there would be other problems connected to these changes.

So In order to buff those MGs we would also need to nerf some squads (removing sprint) and some weapons (aim time), we would change the purpose of some units (mainly AT squads to defensive mostly), we would make the game significantely harder for infantry based doctrines which would probably lead to more extensive usage of arty, we would make the difference between basic and elite infantry more distinct (since elites are more resistant to suppression), we would change quite a lot the strenght of light vehicles too and as the patch with Jeep buff proved - who knows what other problems, which we would not anticipate at all, would show up .

As I said, this was purely hypothetical - to immagine what changes would "tank MG rework" need to include.

[Kasbah]

Well thanks Markr for listenning to our concerns and giving time to answer explaining us. It's a pity that nothing can be done but at least I know why, something I appreciate. Keep up the good work.

[Wolf]

Well thanks Markr for listenning to our concerns and giving time to answer explaining us. It's a pity that nothing can be done but at least I know why, something I appreciate. Keep up the good work.

Yes, there are definitely tanks which could get some buff on their mgs (especially hull mgs), but I don't think its global problem.

We can buff certain tank mgs, but you just can't expect, that sprint-fire-retreat won't be possible.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I think buff needs Luft Panther, Pershing, Terror Tiger, Churchils.

[Kasbah]

OK I didn't read properly. Thx Wolf.

SO yes, if some tanks could get a buff it would be good. From the list Sukin made I would add Panzer IV H also

[Warhawks97]

wow.... lots of activities here... well lets go on. Also thx markr for such coments:) Its pretty constructive and keep it up

This debate went off the topic and then into a loop btw...
It started as "Hit and run" tactics is silly and stupid blablabla...
Response was "Cannot be solved because of the Sprint ability features"
From which it went to "So all infantry should die when runing in front of a tank."
We said it would cause imbalance.
You guys keep persisting it would not.
(now last two points run in circle)

Also:

but your arguments about breaking balance are nonsensical because this infantry taking on tanks frontally holds true for both allied/axis players

This is not about the Axis-Allies balance, it is more about "unit" balance in the sense of "balance between infantry and vehicles", imo.

I will try to be a little constructive here...
Let's say we would buff the hull/coaxial MGs (please note that I used conditional sentence ). The main problem remains AT squads which could ignore the buff anyway because of the "Sprint" ability. So logical conclusion would be to remove "sprint" from AT squads (to solve the problem and also because like really...for how long could the soldiers sprint with Schrecks or zookas anyway?). Then the MGs could be buffed maybe to the state of said Jeep/Schwimm. However, since this change would be intoduced to prevent infantry running in front of tanks without cover, I would still insist on severe nerfs against infantry in cover and lower range. Let's say:
Light cover: accuracy -75%, damage -30%, suppression -60%
Heavy cover: accuracy -85%, damage -70%, suppression -95%
Also the accuracy while the tank is moving should go down.

However there would still remain the possibility to get to tank and fire the AT before the infantry gets killed/ suppressed. We could add the aim time so they would most possibly get suppressed before shooting without cover. Nevertheless with its current range the hand held ATs could still out range the MGs so we would need to lower its range or make them less accurate at max ranges. Note however that this would also turn AT squads to defensive units mostly since their use in offense would be suicidal (maybe in cities they would have some chance). So players would rely more on AT guns (I can remember someone complaining that in the game AT guns lurk "behind every corner" so the situation would be even worse after this I guess).

We would also have to solve what to do with picked up ATs - should the squad which picks an AT also lose the Sprint ability? If yes, AB/luft units would suffer quite a lot from this. And I'm sure there would be other problems connected to these changes.

So In order to buff those MGs we would also need to nerf some squads (removing sprint) and some weapons (aim time), we would change the purpose of some units (mainly AT squads to defensive mostly), we would make the game significantely harder for infantry based doctrines which would probably lead to more extensive usage of arty, we would make the difference between basic and elite infantry more distinct (since elites are more resistant to suppression), we would change quite a lot the strenght of light vehicles too and as the patch with Jeep buff proved - who knows what other problems, which we would not anticipate at all, would show up .

As I said, this was purely hypothetical - to immagine what changes would "tank MG rework" need to include.

I say that rushes towards tanks should not become absolutely impossible. The problem i simply have is that the inf often start running towards vehicles and tanks -which have many mgs- from a very long distant these vehicles and tanks do turn all their weapons towards the inf but still tanks have to set the reverse gear already and vehicles simply have to flee away in panic as fast as fast as possible before these inf units coming into range but still tanks often get heavily damaged and vehicles entirely destroyed... If someone manages to come from a flank, starting sprinting from an ambush etc i dont have probs when the tanks and vehicles get destroyed then but so often you see such attacks coming due to recconassaince and you put up all your tanks with lots of mgs in the direction where these obvious attack comes from but still they often somehow manage to fire their weapon and to kill vehicles and to destroy tanks.


Also yeah, destorying vehicles and tanks should rely a lot more on own anti tank guns and tank destroyers. Also inf based docs have some nice wepaons to knock out tanks so far. On axis side there are either heavy anti tank tools (88 and henschel for luft, nashorn for se, heavy tanks and tankbusters). On allis side commandos have airstrikes but also 17 pounders and two tanks with 17 pdr which is sufficient against most threats and elephants and JT´s will still be no prob against several commando units. US inf doc would suffer most actually as they have no heavy anti tank weapons. Their tactic would be to use simply lots of inf (maybe all rangers would be able to ignore suppression with sprint after vet upgrade?+ -20 mp cost for at gun emplacments. hellcats?).... the number would make the difference here. Also if the 76 gun would be a reliable weapon against medium Tanks such as Tank IV´s then inf doc/ab doc would not rely almost only on their triple bazooka/rl frontal rush to kill axis mediums. Then they could get the one or other 76 sherman or 76 gun equiped tank to be send against a tank IV (without need to spend 100 ammo for the HVAP shots) that "blocks the path" for the infantry and against heavy and super heavy tanks a combo of many emplacments, inf and arty strikes could help to deal with them. Also as said above the game relys on teamplay (which is obvious when watching docs like CW arty or axis TH doc which are very based on one thing).

Also when you talk about flanking: which units mostly prevent successfull flanking attacks of units like hellcat or M10 achilles? correct: inf squads equiped with schrecks. Thing here is that often when the tank comes into fire range to attack an enemie tank they are usually just in range for any schreck squad arround the enemie tank and often when the m10/m18 is aiming and just about to shoot they are also just in range for a schreck (even if only for 0,5 secs)and those blow up these m10/m18 just a second before those can do their shot and thus exactly this "often not possible flanking" is denied exactly by the fact that the schrecks are in range just when these fragile Td´s got into range just that hendheld AT needs no second to aim and instead instanly shoot. So in fact flanking would become possible or a more usefull option for such inf based docs which have only TH´s that must flank super heavy tanks.


also 2 or 3 things we already talked about in older forum:

1. Tanks are often too defensively and infantry is usually the first choice for assaults that cleaning up the path before the tanks role in when it should be more the opposite. Assuming 3 tanks are going to surround and flank some enemie inf units that are catched on a field those should actually die without any real chance. Still very often these infantry manages to destroy some tanks and damaging others and still retreat with often just a few men lost. I could understand such things if the inf is well prepared in ambushes and trenches but inf catched on a field and surrouned by tanks shouldnt be able to do much.

2. Tanks are too weak but also some of them underpriced. if Tanks would, like in reality actually, able to deny some areas for enemie infantry and thus filling the job of HMG units but also anti tank weapon why do they cost less than some single infantry squads? with other words i simply think that many tanks are underperforming a lot (due to crapy coaxial and hull mg) but being also quite cheap (cheaper than inf squads in some cases). I think that infantry should be so far the cheapest tactical unit available and elite squads should cost max as much as some weaker tanks in MP. At the same time, as all tanks or most tanks would go up a bit in cost but also efficency some AT guns would cost a bit more as well.

3. these frontal rushing tanks is a thing that bugs many people arround in BK and also in old forum many wanted changes and some topics got started. Its something i and many others do observe and quite often people do rage when their tanks got hunted accross the map (often tanks without top mounted mgs but still 4 coaxial and hull mgs combined) and finally still killed by like 4-6 men which hunted these tanks or when there are moments when some inf squads simply ignore heavier fire by several vehicles ignoring those and walkign straight to a certain target (arty pice like arty HT, calli or something like that). In one case last week or so a RAF player had two fireflys up to the front to fight a panther tank and to support the infantry. After a nebler salvo and firefights with enemie inf his commandos had to retreat and the two fireflys faced one AT squad and 3 grens with a schreck and he drove backward with his two fireflys shooting with 4 coaxial at those 7 men which couldnt sprint anymore and they hunted these fireflys miles accross the map anf finally killed booth (one got damaged by a nearby arty strike already) before the two commandos could return to help.... this is for example what coaxial mgs should at least be able to prevent. Or what do you think? At least the RAF player just wrote something like..... "hooolly shit".

[MarKr]

The things I described in previous post are possible to do but you have to understand that it is not in our power to make it perfectly balanced in just one patch. It would take several patches to deal with balance such as fine tune the strength of the MGs, aim time and accuracy of ATs and of course the problems that would surely show up which we cannot forsee.

And if you started listing tank which need MG buff, prepare for the people who will start crying that it is unfair that one tank gets MG buff while other does not even though they have the same hull MG...and from this point of view they would be right. Though balance is more important in this case for sure, but still...

[Warhawks97]

The things I described in previous post are possible to do but you have to understand that it is not in our power to make it perfectly balanced in just one patch. It would take several patches to deal with balance such as fine tune the strength of the MGs, aim time and accuracy of ATs and of course the problems that would surely show up which we cannot forsee.

And if you started listing tank which need MG buff, prepare for the people who will start crying that it is unfair that one tank gets MG buff while other does not even though they have the same hull MG...and from this point of view they would be right. Though balance is more important in this case for sure, but still...

well. Maybe at first slight coaxial/hull buff for all and also slight suppression. Not instantly but good enough to avoid that a few men do hunt a tank in reverse gear accross the map by not using sprint ability. Actually similiar as jeep does currently... not much but good enough to stop the inf after some bursts when those stays on a field.

[Wolf]

One thing worth mentioning, you say that tanks usually start reversing, that probably (I did not look into the files, working on something and not having corsix ready) means that you get accuracy debuff on these MGs = they will die even less.

[MarKr]

IIRC atm these MGs are forbidden to fire while on the move. I am not 100% sure but I think it is the case

[Warhawks97]

One thing worth mentioning, you say that tanks usually start reversing, that probably (I did not look into the files, working on something and not having corsix ready) means that you get accuracy debuff on these MGs = they will die even less.

well i know that. The prob is that if you stay, you die even when using HE tanks. I do try not to move with HE tank when it shoots with canon. They only effective way to save the tank (but also not killing the attackers) is to activate suppressive fire+reverse gear. Only suppressive fire doesnt help either or only when you put the tank manually into attackers direction so that mg starts shooting instantly when they come into range.... if not the inf shoots just a sec before being pinned. But as mentioned suppressive fire doesnt kill attackers and so.... even if booth sides survive without a scratch.... the guy with tank lost 40 ammo (depending on map its a lot, esspecially when you need always HVAP as american whenever you face any kind of enemie armor). Also something what i said long time ago is that 75 ammo for HE activation or 75 ammo for upgrade+ activation is quite a lot. losing 3 of such tanks means already a loss of 225 ammo and HE tanks die pretty fast as they are weak armored. Also it seems that suppressive fire ability reduces not only MG´s accuracy/damage output but also those of tanks main canon. HE rounds of HE shermans did kill better without suppressive fire ability active as with suppressive fire ability active.


as we talk about suppressive fire. An option would also be that all vehicles and tanks with coaxial can use it and that it affectes all MG´s on tank/vehicle. Axis TH´s do have suppressive fire with vet 1 and they have no top mounted mg. So it could be an option for all tanks/vehicles. Furthermore the top gunner should not be required for this ability on tanks which usually have one top gunner.

Edit: if you then consider the cost just for some units with HE rounds, suppressive fire ability etc and if you then comapare those massive ammo cost just for saving a tank against inf with cost for arty..... I mean arty is 100 cost for two barrages and knocks out inf, weapon crews, tanks maybe and vehicles. 115 ammo for HE rounds and suppressive fire ability just to stop (sometimes not even kill any enemie) enemie inf that attacks a tank and to save a tank against an infantry assault and without having done any step towards enemie base is a bit frustrating then when arty smashes armies for the same ammo cost oO.

[Wake]

One thing worth mentioning, you say that tanks usually start reversing, that probably (I did not look into the files, working on something and not having corsix ready) means that you get accuracy debuff on these MGs = they will die even less.

This is one reason why a very good unit against AT squads are light vehicles like the quad halftrack. It does a LOT of damage vs infantry, even when moving, and is fast enough to "kite" the AT squad, and stay out of panzershreck range until the enemy is dead or retreats.

Another thing is that if you have an HE sherman sitting in an open field, and a panzershreck team comes from far away, you are better off staying still and letting the sherman fire, than trying to escape and reversing. The sherman will be very innacurate while moving backwards, and the AT team will catch up. If the sherman is still, there is a very good chance that the AT team dies before getting both shots off. Sometimes, if you are lucky, 1 HE shot will kill the entire AT squad.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Hmm... Well, a lot seem to be said since my last check into this page.. I think that currently the frontal rushes into tanks using inf isn't really annoying or anyhow a problem like few players such as Hawks, Lunar and Kasbah are actually trying to point it out now! However that some of what they said should be honestly considered about that; Although that frankly I don't like the idea of generally buffing certain tanks inner\hull HMGs as that maybe decreasing the overall shooting range of all the handled AT weapons including probably PanzerSchrecks, PanzerFausts, and surely Bazookas while excepting the PIAT would be a better solution as I believe exactly like Warhawks said too regarding this suggestion.

Also as MarKr said, buffing some MGs inside certain tanks but others not though that they all are from the same type.. would definitely make people complaining in the future. And tuning this thing will perhaps be hard as well anyways.

But hey Lunar!! There is no doubt about that the Bk mod is now living its best periods btw!!! It was about to totally or completely die but hopefully it didn't by releasing the '4.8x' versions... As that I can see a lot of players recently playing it for the first time or somehow decided to come back to it again after latest patches! Some old dudes admitted for me that the mod now is a lot much more stable and better than anytime before ^^

[Warhawks97]

Hmm... Well, a lot seem to be said since my last check into this page.. I think that currently the frontal rushes into tanks using inf isn't really annoying or anyhow a problem like few players such as Hawks, Lunar and Kasbah are actually trying to point it out now! However that some of what they said should be honestly considered about that; Although that frankly I don't like the idea of generally buffing certain tanks inner\hull HMGs as that maybe decreasing the overall shooting range of all the handled AT weapons including probably PanzerSchrecks, PanzerFausts, and surely Bazookas while excepting the PIAT would be a better solution as I believe exactly like Warhawks said too regarding this suggestion.

Well... tigers have really nothing to fear from zooks or not much. Also BK doc tiger has top turret gunner so for you its maybe less a pushing issue. But did you ever use units like Tank IV´s F? Tanks or vehicles that cant bounce of schrecks? did you? Ever used units like fireflys? Puma with 50 mm kwk? tell me.... and then, after playing hundreds of games where all these units get attacked frontally without chance to bounce the shot of then tell me again its not annooying. Also Piats.... whats your point here? I did not mention piats because they are not the weapon that is used for frontal rushes and also i dont even know how they work or how much range they have.

Also as MarKr said, buffing some MGs inside certain tanks but others not though that they all are from the same type.. would definitely make people complaining in the future. And tuning this thing will perhaps be hard as well anyways.

thats true and we shouldnt buff only those of certain units and make exceptions from tanks with top turret gunner to make them not too OP should not be made.

But hey Lunar!! There is no doubt about that the Bk mod is now living its best periods btw!!! It was about to totally or completely die but hopefully it didn't by releasing the '4.8x' versions... As that I can see a lot of players recently playing it for the first time or somehow decided to come back to it again after latest patches! Some old dudes admitted for me that the mod now is a lot much more stable and better than anytime before ^^

some people leave, others come. Thats nothing new.

[Devilfish]

Well, while these frontal rushes are unrealistic, i agree it might break a balance to stop them completely....but what about other minor nerfs? Slight range nerf (isnt the range same as tank cannon right now?), accuracy (right now they are pretty much like guided missiles) and perhaps less damage to tanks if it is possible to adjust. At least it won't be that easy to get rid of an early pz4 H as obtaining one 360mp unit and rushing it forward...