5.1.7patch

If there is something new, it will be posted here.
kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1601
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby kwok » 26 Feb 2019, 02:42

Well fuck. My draft that I was working on to respond to Warhawks somehow got erased. So I have to start over. Maybe this time around I can be more concise, less to read.

First, let me try to break down Warhawk's argument to something more structured and less rambled.

Statement of Fact: Tigers over perform relative to Allied counterparts, Tigers under perform relative to Axis alternatives.
Argument 1: Tigers are on par or better than nearly all Allied tanks.
Also do you really belive that a Tiger is so much worse than a pershing although both are simiiar effective and resistant/vulnerable to each other factions weaponary?

A Tiger is now as cheap as a Pershing but retains its 1000 HP, 90% accuracy at max range and vet long range shot.
...

If you screen a tiger just with volks, it can be hell effective and a huge pain. Providing long range one-shot capabilties with superb accuracy and able to tank severel pen shot hits.

The direct Buffs tiger already received since debate broke out:

1. First cost drop when you took over controle of BK.
2. Gun damage buff
3. Gun range buff
4. Gun accuracy Buff
5. Now second cost drop.

(perhaps i forgot a few)

Indirect buffs:

1. HE shots hit their targets (which made esspecially big calibre guns very dangerous)
2. All AP shots dont gain extra damage anymore. Guns like 17 pdr max damage with AP thus dropped from 812,5 to 650 damage. Means you need more often 3 shots instead of 2 pen hits with 17 pdr to kill it
3. Ambush standardisation with damage/pen drop. Thus 17 pdrs dont deal 975 damage anymore from ambush. With AP and ambush the max damage dropped from 1218,75 to 812,5! Means Tiger got from "regularly oneshoted from 17 pdr ambush" to "immune to 17 pdr oneshot" (unless you trigger 5% chance.)
4. That being said, the 17 pdr was the main threat of Tigers which got nerfed massively by Ambush nerf and AP shot nerf.
5. Shermans got more expensive (along with HP buff but thats neutralized by higher gun damage for tiger)



Argument 2: Tigers as a "late game tank" are under performing relative to other Axis alternatives

Why do you want to keep the tiger so valuable for late games where tons of other stuff is already available... and that at all cost? There are already Panthers, King Tigers, Jagdpanthers....

You try to make Tigers late game effective. Ok, lets see with what it competes with when it comes to armor and firepower:

1. King Tiger
2. Jagdtiger
3. Elephant
4. Panther
5. Jagdpanther
6. Jagdpanzer IV/70. Yes, its armor is quite comparable to Tiger, at least in terms to armor effectivness vs 76 guns. I would say that the IV/70 is the better choice bc its much harder to hit than Tiger.
7. (Nashorn in terms of defensive firepower and long range anti tank).

So they already have an excessive late game supply compared to which the tiger looks like a boby car.


In other words its like having Porsche or Ferrari cars reaching from 1 million dollar High premium class to 200K Dollar Lower premium class car. The Tiger is the cheapest. Sure it looks bad compared to the higher classes. You just want to sell something that cant compete with the others so you make it stupid cheap. And on the other side its still deadly effective against pretty much all tanks the enemie can get.



Statement of Value: The balance changes are bad because it will allow an over-performing tank (Tiger) to be overly prevalent rather than useful.
Every economic student would tell you that this is just a bad idea and that you should try to either change the product or that you try to sell the product elsewhere or to aim at a different customer class. And this would be the "mid game german players", not the "late gamers". If anything axis lacks in mid game, its a heavy tank. US has its jumbo (inf doc), CW its churchills, just axis have non in mid game but therefore an excessive supply in the late game.
And this game is simply "economic". When you have better stuff or cheaper stuff that does the job, why getting the expensive one? Its more a false identification of the problems (which is not its strenght as such, but the stuff you want it to compete with).

And srsly? look at the ammount of units the Tiger has to compete with in late stage. I listed at least 6 axis tanks which beats the Tiger in aspects of armor and firepower (and beat them also in other aspects such as target size, mobility...)




Statement of Policy: The Tiger should be balanced by changing its CP instead of its price.
I will respond to this one as soon as I confirm the above two statements are your arguments. The argument here is different in nature.

I actually thought that Kwok as new dev member would understand it.

So tell me, do I understand it? If you think I do, then I'll respond otherwise it's just going to be more wall of texts and this forum isn't a battle ground for attrition fights especially when it takes time for patches to come out and bigger reworks are coming.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3866
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Tiger1996 » 26 Feb 2019, 20:18

kwok wrote:Statement of Policy: The Tiger should be balanced by changing its CP instead of its price.

That's 1 thing I totally support Hawks with.. we are talking about a tank that participated in the war since 1942 in comparison to the Pershing on the other hand which has participated only for a few months at the end of the war, in Feb 1945.

Thus, I generally think Pershings should always have better armor but Tigers always earlier available.. they shouldn't be both on the same tier.

Despite I don't really mind the current price adjustments for Tigers, as I believe they are completely insignificant anyways!
However, I think Tiger Ace in particular shouldn't be cheaper than Pershing Ace anyhow.
Either they should cost the same in MP, or Tiger Ace slightly more.

Also, the Tiger Ace should be at least 2 Command Points earlier available than Pershing Ace or the Super Pershing.. it should never require same CPs.

in return of making Tigers earlier available (and even possibly delaying Pershings) I would then recommend improving the armor for Pershings even more so they could be more resistant against Tiger's and Panther's cannon.
This would compensate the HP reduction and how Pershings would be later available as well...

winterflaw
Posts: 174
Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 12:49

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby winterflaw » 26 Feb 2019, 22:28

Tiger1996 wrote:That's 1 thing I totally support Hawks with.. we are talking about a tank that participated in the war since 1942 in comparison to the Pershing on the other hand which has participated only for a few months at the end of the war, in Feb 1945.

Thus, I generally think Pershings should always have better armor but Tigers always earlier available.. they shouldn't be both on the same tier.


Say what?

I may be wrong, but surely when a tank was introduced is not a relevant factor.

For example, the Chaffee was introduced just after the war, and had thin armour - because this was correct for its role.

The -actual- amount of armour on the tank, which we can find on-line, must be the single relevant factor.

As an aside, one factor which seems not be considered in BKM is the metallurgical issues with mid-1944 onwards German armour, due to the replacement of molybdenum with vandium. German armour because brittle, and much less effective.

Anyway, Tiger I production ended or began to end August 1944, so it's not actually a late war tank - the King Tiger and Panther are the late war tanks.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3455
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Warhawks97 » 27 Feb 2019, 00:33

Tiger1996 wrote:
kwok wrote:Statement of Policy: The Tiger should be balanced by changing its CP instead of its price.

That's 1 thing I totally support Hawks with.. we are talking about a tank that participated in the war since 1942 in comparison to the Pershing on the other hand which has participated only for a few months at the end of the war, in Feb 1945.

Thus, I generally think Pershings should always have better armor but Tigers always earlier available.. they shouldn't be both on the same tier.

Despite I don't really mind the current price adjustments for Tigers, as I believe they are completely insignificant anyways!
However, I think Tiger Ace in particular shouldn't be cheaper than Pershing Ace anyhow.
Either they should cost the same in MP, or Tiger Ace slightly more.

Also, the Tiger Ace should be at least 2 Command Points earlier available than Pershing Ace or the Super Pershing.. it should never require same CPs.

in return of making Tigers earlier available (and even possibly delaying Pershings) I would then recommend improving the armor for Pershings even more so they could be more resistant against Tiger's and Panther's cannon.
This would compensate the HP reduction and how Pershings would be later available as well...



Thx. The cost bug me so much bc the Tiger is now more or less on pair with a panther (G model). They are both same tier more or less, most Players skip the tiger in favour of Panther. Those who gone 5 CP for tanks already will contiune doing so till KT.

In its current state it feels like a reward unit to panther just that both are avaialble at the same time. Damage and HP vs Armor and mobility.


Thus i wouldnt drop Tiger cost below the 900 MP mark and instead drop CP down to 3.


Regarding the Pershing i would say that i dont have that many issues with its armor. But i dont use Pershings often anyways so i cant tell.




winterflaw wrote:
Say what?

I may be wrong, but surely when a tank was introduced is not a relevant factor.

For example, the Chaffee was introduced just after the war, and had thin armour - because this was correct for its role.

The -actual- amount of armour on the tank, which we can find on-line, must be the single relevant factor.


yes and no. I mean we wouldnt have Panzer IV D´s since they were phased out after ´40.

But its in so far a factor as these factors are the measurments against which units/weapons a tank is effective or not. It got introduced in 42 so its main opponents in the game would be churchills and normal shermans and 6 pdrs as well as the first 76 guns. That way nobody would complain about too high cost/cost ineffectivness of tigers. But as long as we throw it in during late games, often even after the first jackson arrives (which requires less CP and tec cost), the unit will keep usless unless we drop the cost to below panther cost (thats how other strategy games do it) or unless we push its armor to become more resistant against 17 pdrs/90 mm guns.


Both looks ugly to me bc we would slide too deep into a phantasie mode in which you can give whatever values to whatever units.
So dates of introductions do matter. Nobody would play the game when a Jackson would be an early game tank and a Tank IV D a late game tank for 10 CP (just to make an extrem example if we wouldnt care at all about such things).


Anyway, Tiger I production ended or began to end August 1944, so it's not actually a late war tank - the King Tiger and Panther are the late war tanks.


Thats true, and these should be those you can operate cost effective against late war allied tanks and weapons. For Tigers its simply not the case. Here we need shermans, churchills, cromwells and stuff as measurment.

winterflaw
Posts: 174
Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 12:49

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby winterflaw » 01 Mar 2019, 14:40

Warhawks97 wrote:yes and no. I mean we wouldnt have Panzer IV D´s since they were phased out after ´40.


We could imagine earlier tanks becoming unavailable at CPs are spent to obtain later models. I guess it can't be done in the game, though.

But its in so far a factor as these factors are the measurments against which units/weapons a tank is effective or not. It got introduced in 42


Right at the end of 42, though, right? in small numbers, in North Africa, something tells me (but that seems odd, why not use them in Russia where they're more needed? but late 42 was crisis time in NA, and Hitler did stupid things to try to stay there.)

so its main opponents in the game would be churchills and normal shermans and 6 pdrs as well as the first 76 guns. That way nobody would complain about too high cost/cost ineffectivness of tigers. But as long as we throw it in during late games, often even after the first jackson arrives (which requires less CP and tec cost), the unit will keep usless


Concur. I see the wisdom and the point of a CP based change.

unless we drop the cost to below panther cost (thats how other strategy games do it)


That's a bad idea, I feel. Panthers were much cheaper to make - that was a big part of their value. If we'd like armour use to have a reasonable connection to reality, the economics of tank production is a major factor to consider.

or unless we push its armor to become more resistant against 17 pdrs/90 mm guns.


Awful idea (as you think also). We'd be off in fantasy land. I'd like my Panther's painted pink too if we're going there - I always wanted a Pink Panther! then the case would be sol-ved!

Anyway, Tiger I production ended or began to end August 1944, so it's not actually a late war tank - the King Tiger and Panther are the late war tanks.


Thats true, and these should be those you can operate cost effective against late war allied tanks and weapons. For Tigers its simply not the case. Here we need shermans, churchills, cromwells and stuff as measurment.


What would be nice if if the KT could actually be produced in the tank factory. If I remember rightly, it's an one-at-a-time on-map call-in (can it be ressed with the Berger Tiger?). In reality, in the war, it was the main heavy tank.

Sherman Fireflys vs King Tigers is actual war reality, although of course KTs were so few and far between, most people never saw one.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 02 Mar 2019, 14:16

winterflaw wrote:
What would be nice if if the KT could actually be produced in the tank factory. If I remember rightly, it's an one-at-a-time on-map call-in (can it be ressed with the Berger Tiger?). In reality, in the war, it was the main heavy tank.

Sherman Fireflys vs King Tigers is actual war reality, although of course KTs were so few and far between, most people never saw one.


No the King Tiger, is produced from the Battalion support building, and not off map called in.
It is limited to one though.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3455
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Warhawks97 » 02 Mar 2019, 14:27

Panzerblitz1 wrote:
No the King Tiger, is produced from the Battalion support building, and not off map called in.
It is limited to one though.


@Winterflaw: he means one at a time, not one per game.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 03 Mar 2019, 05:34

Warhawks97 wrote:
Panzerblitz1 wrote:
No the King Tiger, is produced from the Battalion support building, and not off map called in.
It is limited to one though.


@Winterflaw: he means one at a time, not one per game.


Yes one at a time.
Image

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 408
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: 5.1.7patch

Postby Viper » 15 Mar 2019, 04:50

ok. so the patch is now released on steam?

maybe you need to post announcement on the store page.

thanks for the patch :)


Return to “Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest