5.1.7patch

If there is something new, it will be posted here.
User avatar
Viper
Posts: 417
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Viper » 17 Feb 2019, 23:10

i tried panzer elite officer unit and american captain. hold position stopped riflemen and panzer grenadiers from retreating.

25p emplacement glitched a few times and refused to fire.
also there was no scatter. the yellow circle does not get wider with more range.
but after the super charge rounds unlock. the range noramlly becomes wider with more range. (i mean for 25p emplacement only)
the normal 25p is working very fine.

MarKr wrote:Yes, I think we'll do something about it for the next release.

very good. i think 50 or 45 range will be fair.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2823
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby MarKr » 19 Feb 2019, 10:05

Viper wrote:i tried panzer elite officer unit and american captain. hold position stopped riflemen and panzer grenadiers from retreating.
This is weird - Riflemen and PGrens use the same file for Hold Position (same file = the abilities must act the same). PE Officer and US Captain use the same Force retreat abilities as WM Officer (so again, must work the same). During the test game with Shadow, I had Riflemen in Hold Position, Shadow used WM Officer to forceretreat them and they did :?
One maybe stupid question - any chance you played Africa or some other addon?

Viper wrote:25p emplacement glitched a few times and refused to fire.
(...)
also there was no scatter. the yellow circle does not get wider with more range.
but after the super charge rounds unlock. the range noramlly becomes wider with more range. (i mean for 25p emplacement only)
OK, I think I found it.
Image

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 417
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Viper » 19 Feb 2019, 18:15

MarKr wrote:any chance you played Africa or some other addon?

yes. i had historical addon enabled. but the other player testing with me, had it disabled. and there was no desync or anything.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 149
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 21 Feb 2019, 02:56

Warhawks97 wrote:
Depends, it does make infantry combat less micro intense. But i also dont really like these "sudden disappearences" in mid combat, esspecially when its AT stuff that has fired/missed the shot, gets shot but then disappears again with 0.5 HP left and fires once more and blowing your vehicle/tank which else had the upper hand in this specific moment.

Or when units ambush on parachute, disapear a second during retreat and thus escape from an else sure death....

The "re-ambush" timers need to be higher once they got revealed. I would add passive camos for rangers perhaps but for AT squads i would keep it at first the way it is.


The ability button doesn't make a difference here. I've had numerous situations on the click-to-camo HMG units like MG42s and 30Cals retreating while invisible. Even the anti-tank squad can be used like this if you press the button immediatly while they are in cover and they will disappear infront of the tank while they reload to fire another shot. One can only hope the player is not very good with micro and doesn't spam the camouflage button on their units every time they enter a cover spot or this exact situation will keep happening over and over.

The problem ultimately lies with how the camouflage stats are set and doesn't have anything to do with it being a button or being passive. I agree lots of camouflage stats are broken but the button is there as an unnecessary extra-click. Like COH 2's old ambulance where you had to click every time on the 'heal' button for it to heal stuff around it. This button is not really necessary as much as a stop-gap against camouflage abuse with less-micro-intensive players.

Testing the moving accuracy modifiers with US tanks I notice there isn't much of a big difference at all. A sherman that's moving right next to an enemy tank will still miss because the moving accuracy penalty is still too high. This gets really bad with german tanks that have their target_tables set to have even lower accuracy vs them because of their size. So trying to move and shoot around most PE TD's turns into a really bad idea.

I don't know if the developers know this but most people in-game do a stop-shoot-move trick with their tanks instead of shooting on the move with them. They go max speed with their tanks at a target, stop just when the gun reloads, fire it (this way the shot doesn't count as a 'moving shot' and doesn't suffer an accuracy penalty), and move again before the deceleration bonus kicks in and keep their speed momentum. I'm still going to have to rely on this trick with US sherman tanks because relying on them to hit a target AND penetrate it is a super huge gamble and the 10% extra moving accuracy doesn't change that.

To make the tank stabilizers have a bigger impact would mean giving them better moving accuracy. I'd put every sherman but the firefly and the easy eight at 0.7 or 0.75. The firefly can stay at 0.5 or 0.6; and the easy eight would be at 0.8 or 0.85.

US TD's I'd put at 0.7 as well; though for the M10 it doesn't really matter because you're going to have to stop the tank to have it shoot anyway.

I also agree with having Axis Heavy Tanks accuracy levels be equalized because King Tigers (like Tigers before accuracy buff) when used in combat miss a bit too often. The big guns should have 0.9 accuracy instead of 0.75 like the Tiger does; with their moving accuracy being lower than 0.5.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3559
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Warhawks97 » 21 Feb 2019, 04:53

MenciusMoldbug wrote:

Testing the moving accuracy modifiers with US tanks I notice there isn't much of a big difference at all. A sherman that's moving right next to an enemy tank will still miss because the moving accuracy penalty is still too high. This gets really bad with german tanks that have their target_tables set to have even lower accuracy vs them because of their size. So trying to move and shoot around most PE TD's turns into a really bad idea.

I don't know if the developers know this but most people in-game do a stop-shoot-move trick with their tanks instead of shooting on the move with them. They go max speed with their tanks at a target, stop just when the gun reloads, fire it (this way the shot doesn't count as a 'moving shot' and doesn't suffer an accuracy penalty), and move again before the deceleration bonus kicks in and keep their speed momentum. I'm still going to have to rely on this trick with US sherman tanks because relying on them to hit a target AND penetrate it is a super huge gamble and the 10% extra moving accuracy doesn't change that.

To make the tank stabilizers have a bigger impact would mean giving them better moving accuracy. I'd put every sherman but the firefly and the easy eight at 0.7 or 0.75. The firefly can stay at 0.5 or 0.6; and the easy eight would be at 0.8 or 0.85.

US TD's I'd put at 0.7 as well; though for the M10 it doesn't really matter because you're going to have to stop the tank to have it shoot anyway.

I also agree with having Axis Heavy Tanks accuracy levels be equalized because King Tigers (like Tigers before accuracy buff) when used in combat miss a bit too often. The big guns should have 0.9 accuracy instead of 0.75 like the Tiger does; with their moving accuracy being lower than 0.5.



Right now the accuuary on the move (in the beta here) for a sherman is exactly the same as for a panther. The sherman loses less accuracy but starts of with a much worse one.



So yeah, as you said, the we should look forward to have US tanks/vehicles being the most accurate on the move, not just losing less accuracy on the move.



The mid range accuracy is also a big issue. It drops down too fast. At roughly axis nade range the accuracy of most tanks drops down massivley. Roughly saying targets that are beyond middle distant (30 range) wont get hit every fourth time. I woud wish to have a more continues accuracy drop like instead of 1/1/0.75/0.75 it could be 1/1/0.85/0.75. This combined with less accuracy drop on the move should help making close/mid range flanking attacks actually working and less silly to watch (right now the barrel can almost toch the target and the shot fails badly).

And fix JP/70 target table. It shouldnt be harder to hit than Hetzer. I dont see why this tank which has armor as good as tigers armor should eb so extremely hard to hit.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 417
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Viper » 21 Feb 2019, 19:40

3 things.

1. daimler and 2p tetrarch deal too much deflection damage against tanks (even against king & jagd tigers)

2. recoiless jeep has too much penetration vs tigers and panthers (it should suffer to penetrate even from the rear)

3. the stubby short barrel 75mm german cannons should have less penetration against comet tank (especially panzer 3 ausf.n)

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2823
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby MarKr » 21 Feb 2019, 20:19

3 questions.

1. Are you sure the Tetrarch deals deflection damage? I can see it on unupgraded Daimler but not on Tetrarch :?

2.I could agree on the frontal penetration but why should RL jeep struggle to penetrate them from rear, especially Panthers which had very weak rear armor? Also keep in mind that the Jeep does NOT use the same RL as 101st Paratroopers. 101st use the 57mm M18 RL, while the Jeep uses the 75mm M20 RL.

3. What do you think the frontal penetration chances currently are? And what do you think they should be?
Why should the PIII be weaker when it has exactly the same gun? :?
Image

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 417
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Viper » 21 Feb 2019, 21:01

1. not sure about the tetrarch. but i saw the daimler. so i thought tetrarch could be the same.

2. viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3133
yes. panther rear is very weak. so the m20 recoiless rifle should always penetrate panther rear better.
but if you check this replay........the recoiless jeep single handedly destroyed a tiger tank after penetrating it 5 times in the row (zero bounce) and ofcourse the tiger tank can't hit the jeep because it's faster and the turret is slow. i think the biggest problem is how the jeep "hugs" tiger tank right under its wheels making the tiger unable to move (jeep not being crushed although it's a car - engine limitation) and then fires at point blank range.

so i think not only the frontal penetration should be lower.
but also the recoiless jeep should have at least 10 minimum range and no "hit ground" ability to prevent this abuse.


3. i dont think panzer 3 should be weakest. but i think panzer 3 is currently performing the best against comet.
and is it really using the same connon? i think the reload time for panzer3 is significantly lower. (but this rate of fire is ok)
i think the problem is not the rate of fire. but the penetration is too much against the comet. when considering this rate of fire.
thats why the panzer3 is better against comet than any other axis vehicle with the same gun.
right now it feels like 40% penetration at medium range. but it should be about 15% only.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 149
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 21 Feb 2019, 21:22

Comets armor is bad vs P3 because it's bad vs everything. It's using cromwell armor; which can get penetrated and killed by Wehrmachts 20mm base AA gun.

Comets armor wasn't that much different to the P4 H; Maybe just very tiny amount weaker than that. The difference between their values in-game is astonishing. Comet gets ripped apart by 50mm pumas and Pak 50 guns. But try and use a 76mm gun on P3's and this P4 F2 with 50mm armor plating on the front and you will have a chance to bounce it.

There's no reason a 76mm sherman should ever bounce this 50mm front plate. No reason a 20mm flak gun in the base should frontally penetrate and kill the comet (even stuart has less chance of being penetrated by the 20mm flak gun than the cromwells armor); it's just all sorts of wrong.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 417
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Viper » 21 Feb 2019, 21:30

if the 20mm cannons can penetrate comets. they shouldnt.

but the comet armor is not bad vs everything. and not same as cromwell armor.

if there is any problem with the comet. it is how they need 6 command points (should be only 4 command points) but that's everything.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2823
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby MarKr » 21 Feb 2019, 21:42

Haven't seen the replay but I will guess they were all rear shots, because the chance of getting 5x in a row penetration against tiger frontally is about 0.2%. The minimum range being set to 0 is a problem and will be changed to the standard minimum range. It will keep the attack ground ability because if you want to prevent the abuse you would need to remove the attack ground from any unit that has minimum attack range. Also RL Jeep is unarmored which means that even rifle bullets can damage and destroy it so keeping some support around your heavy tanks should be enough to kill the Jeep. What units were supporting the Tiger in that replay?
Image

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 149
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 21 Feb 2019, 21:43

Viper wrote:but the comet armor is not bad vs everything. and not same as cromwell armor.


viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2467

Wolf wrote:- Changed Comet armor type to same as Cromwell (and added rec.penetration x0.9 modifier)


Comets Armor 1.png
Comets Armor 1.png (7.11 KiB) Viewed 3602 times


Let's put it into perspective; the weakest axis gun you can have vs allied tanks is the stubby p4 cannon. It has a 0.5 pen mulitplier vs cromwell armor (so 50%). At distant range the penetration is at 0.78. Without the comet received penetration modifier: The cromwell's armor has a 39% chance of being penetrated at distant range by possibly the weakest axis tank gun in the game.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3900
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Tiger1996 » 21 Feb 2019, 22:00

MenciusMoldbug wrote:There's no reason a 76mm sherman should ever bounce this 50mm front plate. No reason a 20mm flak gun in the base should frontally penetrate and kill the comet (even stuart has less chance of being penetrated by the 20mm flak gun than the cromwells armor); it's just all sorts of wrong.

Realistically speaking, you have a point.. however, I don't think there is any balance issue seeing Pz4.F1 or F2 occasionally bouncing off 76mm guns.
it's necessary to the overall "M4 vs Pz4" game balance. Else, you will hear guys complaining that Ostwind should reliably kill Shermans from the rear!

Or you could hear even others complaining that the Comet reverse speed is way too high, because in reality the Comet actually had slower reverse speed than Panthers... Panthers reverse speed was -3 km/h but Comets only had -1 km/h reverse speed.. on and on.

Also; the received penetration modifier makes the Comet's armor better than Cromwell's armor against long barreled 75mm Axis guns at max range.
So, technically the same armor type.. nevertheless, definitely not the same performance.

MarKr wrote:What units were supporting the Tiger in that replay?

I also watched that replay and recently recorded that scene as well, based on Walder's request (the up-loader of the playback file) and the Tiger wasn't really supported by enough units.. keeping in mind by the way that the Tiger tank belonged to Kwok (no hard feelings here, though) :D

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2823
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby MarKr » 21 Feb 2019, 22:04

Guys, Cromwell costs 390MP 40F and people already complain that they are very cheap and at the same time effective at killing heavy tanks due to speed and thus the ability to hit them from the rear. Do you really think it is wise to make them more resistant to anything?

If they were more resistant, they would need to cost more. Hard to say how much more but then it would be generally better to go for Firefly as soon as possible because the cost difference would be a lot less significant and Fireflies don't need to flank (so require less micro) so much due to a solid gun. So at some point it would turn into a "Firefly is less of a hassle to use while costing not much more" and then we have another unit which is almost never used.
Image

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 149
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 21 Feb 2019, 22:15

Tiger1996 wrote:Realistically speaking, you have a point.. however, I don't think there is any balance issue seeing Pz4.F1 or F2 occasionally bouncing off 76mm guns.
it's necessary to the overall "M4 vs Pz4" game balance. Else, you will hear guys complaining that Ostwind should reliably kill Shermans from the rear!


I'm ok with ostwind damaging shermans from the rear tbh. That reminded me that some of 3.7cm flak guns on stuff like the mobelwagen does no damage to hellcats; I think that should be fixed considering the puma already does damage to it.

Thing is you can't fix the comet being killed by P3 N's with their normal shells without buffing cromwell armor. Or the penetration modifier will have to be even lower; which will affect the bigger axis guns even more.

@Markr

Please remove this penetration chance from the flak38_20mm_gun on cromwell armor; there is no reason for it to be able to do this. Puma and the quad 20mm's cannot penetrate the cromwell from the front so this flak gun shouldn't be able to either.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 417
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Viper » 21 Feb 2019, 22:25

MarKr wrote:The minimum range being set to 0 is a problem and will be changed to the standard minimum range. It will keep the attack ground ability because if you want to prevent the abuse you would need to remove the attack ground from any unit that has minimum attack range.

ok. fair enough.

MarKr wrote:Guys, Cromwell costs 390MP 40F and people already complain that they are very cheap and at the same time effective at killing heavy tanks due to speed and thus the ability to hit them from the rear. Do you really think it is wise to make them more resistant to anything?

20mm cannons should not penetrate cromwell. and they dont need to cost more. but cromwell should be available later.
you can do this by making the third british armor truck require captain (currently it doesn't)
and you can allow daimler and light vehicles earlier to compensate.

Tiger1996 wrote:Or you could hear even others complaining that the Comet reverse speed is way too high, because in reality the Comet actually had slower reverse speed than Panthers... Panthers reverse speed was -3 km/h but Comets only had -1 km/h reverse speed.. on and on.

in bk mod the comet has flank speed in reverse...........lol

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2823
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby MarKr » 21 Feb 2019, 22:29

MenciusMoldbug wrote:Please remove this penetration chance from the flak38_20mm_gun on cromwell armor; there is no reason for it to be able to do this. Puma and the quad 20mm's cannot penetrate the cromwell from the front so this flak gun shouldn't be able to either.
Yep. Done.

Viper wrote:in bk mod the comet has flank speed in reverse...........lol
The CoH engine does not know what "reverse speed" is. You can only set a maximum speed of a vehicle and it can travel this speed forward or backward. Engine...
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3559
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Warhawks97 » 22 Feb 2019, 12:52

Viper wrote:2. recoiless jeep has too much penetration vs tigers and panthers (it should suffer to penetrate even from the rear)


No, why? I just can keep repeating support your tanks. NO Tank should be a "one unit army".

In the battle of bulge a greyhound ambushed a KT, followed it and came as close as 25 meters to a KT. It destryoyed the engine of the KT and ran away.


Bigger shall not mean always better. You pay high costs for such tanks bc they can take a lot of punishing with HP and armor. So the best way to counter these things is not to get into an arms race but to beat it with simple means. Thats simple war logic. One side builds a super expensive unit (lets take as example modern days Aircraft carriers or stealth aircaft. They cost a lot. What does the enemie: tweaks radar systems a bit or builds high speed high altitude ballistic anti ship missiles or almost hypersonic anti ship missiles. And while the one tweaks the radar and air defense system in order to destroy these expensive jets from very long range, the other side develops "mini drone swarms" with explosives to counter these bc these are cheaper than the usage of these expensive AA systems. As conter that side goes back to "cheap" close range heavy autocanon which can shoot down many drowns for lower cost) and the job of the other is to find a way to counter these in a cheap way. Remove this aspect and you break the whole logic of warfare and the development to counters.


Viper wrote:
2. viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3133
yes. panther rear is very weak. so the m20 recoiless rifle should always penetrate panther rear better.
but if you check this replay........the recoiless jeep single handedly destroyed a tiger tank after penetrating it 5 times in the row (zero bounce) and ofcourse the tiger tank can't hit the jeep because it's faster and the turret is slow. i think the biggest problem is how the jeep "hugs" tiger tank right under its wheels making the tiger unable to move (jeep not being crushed although it's a car - engine limitation) and then fires at point blank range.



That says everything about this issue. Where was tiger support? Just a inf squad.... fuck even a god damn simple cheap AT rifle squad could have helped a lot.

Recently i fought against an axis player and blijwa map. He backed his panther with 50 mm AT gun (at first, remains from early game), later with 75. To that an HMG, Volks and AT rifle squads on each side which covered the flanks and in case can damage flanking tanks. Units like hellcat have nothing to laugh bc even those get recked by this AT rifle squad. Its the best flank protection unit you can get for your own tanks and vehicles. Perhaps the guy with the tiger should test it out to prevent getting shot in the ass 5 fucking times.... wtf. That the tiger can survive 5 rear shots is the only broken thing here.



MenciusMoldbug wrote:Comets armor is bad vs P3 because it's bad vs everything. It's using cromwell armor; which can get penetrated and killed by Wehrmachts 20mm base AA gun.

Comets armor wasn't that much different to the P4 H; Maybe just very tiny amount weaker than that. The difference between their values in-game is astonishing. Comet gets ripped apart by 50mm pumas and Pak 50 guns. But try and use a 76mm gun on P3's and this P4 F2 with 50mm armor plating on the front and you will have a chance to bounce it.

There's no reason a 76mm sherman should ever bounce this 50mm front plate. No reason a 20mm flak gun in the base should frontally penetrate and kill the comet (even stuart has less chance of being penetrated by the 20mm flak gun than the cromwells armor); it's just all sorts of wrong.




Thx. I had to stop playing BK at first again after seeing a Hellcat bouncing from a god damn stubby tank IV three times in a row again.... Then the same with a 76 sherman. The chance to pen is like what.. 67% or something when i remember correctly? You pay 2 CP to get one fucking hellact or even M10 and then it bounces from the most outdated in tank in the game.
The 76 should handle these tanks with ease, all these old Tank IV versions from D to F2. And while mine Hellcat bounced three times, the AT rifle squad killed the hellcat in three shots or 4... idk.Its just.... such mishaps can ruin entire games. M18 bounces from a stubby tank IV, M10 from ambush bounces from a Tank IV J and its almost GG, you lose your tank or retreat, in any case you lost important ground.


If you want to make 37 mm pen shermans rear sometimes, i dont mind. Getting flanked is not a unit related problem, its a player related problem.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 417
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Viper » 22 Feb 2019, 13:18

you can not apply 1 side of the truth only in game.. you want realistic flanking system and realistic penetration chances for everything.....but at the same time you ignore serious game engine limitations in the same field....you say the only broken thing is how the tiger tank needed 5 hits from the jeep......what about when the jeep hugs the tiger tank under its wheels and doesnt get crushed although it's a car? what about the realistic combat range??? the tiger in reality would have sniped that jeep long ago.....across the map. what about reverse speed for vehicles???? you cant apply this "full realism approach" only when it fits the agenda and ignore the rest.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3559
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Warhawks97 » 22 Feb 2019, 15:13

"Full realism approach".....

1. How fair is it to spend 2 CP in a Tank destroyer that cant even destroy a 0 CP tank which doesnt cost that much?
2. Sending units alone arround the field is just dump, no matter how expensive they are. All Startegy games i play expect from the player to combine units. For example i am playing Empire total war a lot and there the most expensive ship costs like 4 or 5 times as much than one of the most cheapest one but it cant beat it alone... why? BC the small one maneuvers fast and ruins the sails of the heavy one.... it cant sink it actually but it can make it usless. Its the mix (heavier ships that punish) with light screening forces that makes up a good fleet. Here its the same. The Tiger can strike hard with its range, massive gun and damage, big HE shells and can tank a lot but it needs support, simple as that. So dont come up wtith blaming me for "full realism approach" just bc i told that units have to support each other. Who cant do so is simply a military retard.
3. The jeep btw costs almost 300 MP. So you can build two and try to rear shot the tiger but just one AT rifle squad and 600 MP for nothing... how about that?
4. The flank speed thing is something that bugs me and should be limited down to a max 25% speed boost (and the acceleration boost is also insane.... a PE 20 mm car for example can go from 80 Km/h forward to 80 km/h backward within less than as second. I always expect the crew to crush through the fontal armor plate but the seat belts seem to be very advanced.
5. And yes, sadly we have no reverse gear, if so than the heavy tanks would have even harder times and jeeps would have it even easier to shoot tigers asses. The tank would never be fast enough in reverse to even think about driving over a jeep. Too bad, thats so sad.

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 63
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Death_Kitty » 22 Feb 2019, 18:39

There is realism, and then there is common sense. Common sense would dictate that the better fire on the move for the sherman and co. was definitely a step in the right direction, but the 76mm still needs buffs across the board. Even better accuracy on the move, while at the same time standardizing Axis stationary accuracy, like warhawk mentioned. At the same time, some BS accuracy values need to be nerfed, like the jagdpanzer's received accuracy, literally every aspect of the hetzer, and it should be easier to penetrate Panzer 4 with a sherman 76, at least concerning the early versions. And dont give me any of this "well if we buff the Sherman, no one will use panzer 4"; then nerf the alternative, or remove it, limit it to other docs.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1699
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby kwok » 22 Feb 2019, 20:42

Will post more soon.
Just wanted to say, yeah the Tiger in the replay deserved to die. I played idiotically, it was a friendly game, a good game, and a fun game. I'm proud of wald killing my Tiger and the mentality of the game itself wasn't to win at all costs because at that point I probably could've won the game with the Tiger well supported by the rest of my units. If you heard the discord while we played, your perception of "what happeend" in the game might change. That Tiger deserved to die lol.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the recoiless rifle jeep killing a tiger. Skill was used on one side, skill was lacking on another, and those moment should be enabled and even encouraged. It's what makes CoH a great game. Otherwise, if a rec jeep has no chance against a Tiger, the game becomes Starcraft.

BE BACK SOON WITH A SHIT TON MORE TO SAY! I actually had a draft written up but then it got deleted somehow I had to rewrite EVERYTHING. Still rewriting and writing to respond to Warhawks. Sorry guys.
But, for now I'm unconvinced by Warhawks that the tiger needs to change. If anything, some other feedback I got was that the Tiger STILL isn't good enough. But I think future reworks will fix the rest of the problems. This is just a starting point and temp fix. In the beta games I've played, definitely seen Tigers more (but maybe it's because people are just trying to use it for the sake of testing) and they have their purpose. They aren't being spammed and they aren't being easily/immediately killed. So it feels pretty successful as a starting place for balance. This is likely all going to change soon though, reworks are a monster to figure out.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 417
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Viper » 22 Feb 2019, 22:00

recoiless jeep killing tiger tank is only fictional story. happens only in bk mod. the tiger was supported. there was 1 grenadier squad. 1 volks and i think 1 officer behind the tiger. I dont know why you need "anti tank" rifle to kill naked unarmed jeep. 12 men with bullets cant quickly kill 2 men driving a car???? even the leig18 hit the jeep and it survived. this jeep has more value than elefant tank in bk mod. and you still talk about realism........

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3559
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Warhawks97 » 23 Feb 2019, 14:01

kwok wrote:
BE BACK SOON WITH A SHIT TON MORE TO SAY! I actually had a draft written up but then it got deleted somehow I had to rewrite EVERYTHING. Still rewriting and writing to respond to Warhawks. Sorry guys.
But, for now I'm unconvinced by Warhawks that the tiger needs to change. If anything, some other feedback I got was that the Tiger STILL isn't good enough. But I think future reworks will fix the rest of the problems. This is just a starting point and temp fix. In the beta games I've played, definitely seen Tigers more (but maybe it's because people are just trying to use it for the sake of testing) and they have their purpose. They aren't being spammed and they aren't being easily/immediately killed. So it feels pretty successful as a starting place for balance. This is likely all going to change soon though, reworks are a monster to figure out.


you will never get it cheap enough for those who controle 1, max 2 units at a time. For those who expect getting tiger makes them "free from support".


Idk, in the 3 vs 3 maps that are going to take more than 30 or 45 mins you see pershing after pershing and panther after panther. Spending into defenses doesnt makes much sense unless you got inf doc and MP left over since both got enogh arty to deal with it. So spending goes only into grens/heavy tanks or heavy tanks/shermans (or comet and stuff) which ends up in a "Standoff of offensive units" or "Battle of the Giants". And depending on map size you will face one after another. I killed 3 or 4 panthers with jacksons alone in a recent 3 vs 3, mates did so with arty and anti tank guns but there was always a panther left (usually 2, sometimes even three) whe two out of three docs get panthers.
Thing with panthers is: Jackson is kind of guranteed counter from ambush as it puts enough damage to oneshot them. Now Tigers are coming in just as frequent numbers as Panther G´s.... its like: The enemie got good pen but low damage guns (E.G ambushed 76 anti tank guns): Get Panther for better armor. The enemie gets guns with such high pen that even panther cant resist? Get Tiger for the HP so that it can take a pen shot but keeps stay alive. We technically made the Tiger to be an alternative to a Panther (when HP or gun damage matters more than armor and pen power) and also a "heavy tank on discount" for those poor who cant afford a KT anymore.

And i blame this approach, thats all.




Viper wrote:recoiless jeep killing tiger tank is only fictional story. happens only in bk mod. the tiger was supported. there was 1 grenadier squad. 1 volks and i think 1 officer behind the tiger. I dont know why you need "anti tank" rifle to kill naked unarmed jeep. 12 men with bullets cant quickly kill 2 men driving a car???? even the leig18 hit the jeep and it survived. this jeep has more value than elefant tank in bk mod. and you still talk about realism........


Oh, yeah, its not that i blamed the high HP pools of these units for years already. I want schwimms/jeeps cheaper but with less HP. Cheap reconasaince units as a cheap tool to deal with sniper spams. Instead these things cost more than a Halftrack and are kind of mobile HMG platforms almost unkillable by normal bullets. The bike is the only unit that fits in the category light reconassaince unit. Cheap but fragile.


And where did i talk about realism again? Jeez. Read my post again pls.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 333
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 25 Feb 2019, 15:52

If you going to make another buff for tiger, buff pershing too.


Return to “Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests