5.1.5 Beta v4

If there is something new, it will be posted here.
User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2314
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby MarKr » 19 Jun 2018, 13:59

Hello, beta v4 is available on Steam.

The changes are cumulative with previous changes in betas so this one has everything from "beta v3" plus the following:

General:
- Added some tweaks to AI; it should now build emplacements more apropriately (thanks to Sonsalt)
- Fixed wrong Veterancy UI on all versions of 88mm flak36

US:
- Thompson upgrade returned to 101st
- AB "weapon price drop" upgrade now also applies -5 ammo change for the new 101st Garand upgrade
- Sherman E8 increased HP to 700 (from 682; to match the new HP of 76(W), however +18HP on a tank in most situations makes no difference anyway)

Wehrmacht:
- Removed 37mm PaK36 from HQ building
- Fixed wrong Veterancy UI on 75mm L48 Halftrack
- Added new AT squad armed with Pzb39 AT rifle to Barracks
-- 4 men
-- 1x MP40, 2xKar98, 1xPzB39
-- Abilities: Throw Eihandgranate 39, Treadbreaker, Building sandbags/barbedwires
-- Point capture speed 0.75
-- Cost 230MP

Panzer Elite:
- Luftwaffe now has special texture for its Sniper (stats/abilities are same as for the SE sniper)
- The Kar98 sniper rifle has now a bit darker texture (was a bit too bright)
- JagdPanther should no longer display "hold facing" ability (it was previsouly removed and accientaly put back)

Obviously the only game-changing thing here is addition of a new early game anti-vehicle squad to Wehrmacht. We want to make it clear that this squad is not meant to be a mirror of CW BOYS, sure, these two have some common or similar features but they are not meant to work completely the same - we tried to make it a bit different.
The squad completely replaces PaK36 for WM, it is available in HQ building after you had built your Barracks, compared to PaK36 this squad is a bit more expensive. It offers some advantages over PaK36 so it couldn't really stay on same price but we couldn't make it too expensive because then it would be hard to combine it with other units in early game because you would not be able to afford them.
Anyway, the PzB39 squad has 4 men, one of them is armed with anti-tank (or more like "anti-material") rifle, similar to BOYS. This squad has no "static" mode which would increase their range and accuracy and the squad has also no camo. What they DO have is basic range of 65 on the PzB39 which means that at its maximum range you can hit vehicles but most of them cannot shoot back at you from their max range. You will also notice that this squad has the Treadbreaker ability, however this ability only effectively works on units up to "light tank" tier, the chance to immobilize anything heavier with it is very low.
So the general tactic here is not to "shoot vehicles from camo with static mode on" but instead use the range advantage and/or use the immobilisation ability and finish the vehicle off from a safe distance. However the squad does not have sight range of 65 so you will need another squad (even Volks are sufficient) to spot for you in order to use the full range of the AT rifle. The rifle takes about two shots to kill HTs or armored cars, penetration vs them is practically quaranteed, it can also go through armor of light tanks however there you need to pray to the RNG to get a frontal penetration, rear penetration is more likely to happen. There is a chance to deal damage to something heavier than light tanks, but the chance is very low (at about 10% to medium tanks, even less for heavy units. Apart from that the unit (compared to PaK36) keeps the advantages of mobile squads - better mobility, can shoot in 360°, can cap points, can quickly retreat, gain bonuses from command units etc.

It would be nice to get some feedback on this new unit, especially how it influences the early game and if it needs to be further tweaked - it most likely WILL need some tweaking, in that case please tell us what you think causes problems (e.g. the cost, abilities etc.).

Next beta will address any balance issues reported for this new squad, we're not planning on adding any more features or changes so once this squad is working well, the 5.1.5 will go live (unless some serious issues occur).

Thanks for any feedback.
Image

speeddemon02
Posts: 157
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 03:11

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby speeddemon02 » 19 Jun 2018, 18:33

I was curious why the WM and not PE? The infantry support center upgrades would nice upgrades to the squad if they could be applied, but at the same time would that make them OP?

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2314
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby MarKr » 19 Jun 2018, 20:48

Kwok said it in the post (where this squad was announced) quite well:
kwok wrote:I say it DOES make more sense for it to go to WH rather than PE because you put a scenario where an axis team needs to coordinate their early game build orders to form a coherent strategy or they'll get stomped by allies (a faction with a player base MUCH more experienced in working together than solo'ing). Does the axis team want to do an early mobile strategy? WH can get the new AT squad and volks with K98, meanwhile PE can get the sct car and pios. OR will axis try a more defensive strategy? PE gets the PAK and assault grens with mp44s, WH gets MG42 and spotter. Allied players are forced to do this ALL THE TIME while axis get a free ride to make a well rounded. Devs have made it really clear that they are trying to design a team oriented game, this is solidifying that message.


Many people think "PE = mobility" which should be true, but it does not mean that any unit that has some mobility advantage needs to go only to PE. PE has mobile early AT units e.g. SC with 28mm, HT with 37mm, AT nades available to most squads from the start (squads are not pure AT but it contributes to AT options).
Image

The New BK Champion
Posts: 114
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby The New BK Champion » 19 Jun 2018, 21:32

Here is your feedback on the new unit

1. When the guy carring the rifle dies, no one "picks it up", even after reinforcing you end up with 3x kar + 1 mp40 squad ( btw if u fix this can you also fix rangers not picking up bazooka in the same manner too?)

2. When you use treadbreaker ability bugs the squad. The soldier closest to the target, for example the one with mp40, materialises second AT rifle and fires a single shot that immobilises. So for the duration of the ability u have 2 at rifles that can even fire simultaneously. On the other hand if the closest soldier is the one actually carrying the rifle - his rifle suddenly disappears, he stands there for 3 sec, it materialises again and he immobilises, then again 3 sec standing without weapon. Really, really bugged.

3. Penetration inconsistency:

a) Recce is the most important thing to balance here I think. And unfortunately in my test recce pening was a pure RNG. I had killed around 40 of them and very often they got penned at full range like it was a damn pak 50mm shell, on the other time it also bounced even 15 rounds from point blank. Shots generally take around 4/5 of hp, which is more than damn 28mm shell, almost the same damage as 50mm... I had a strong feeling that at max range every second recce is pennned with the first shot, and at point blank they tend to bounce 4-8 shots in a row. The reality is different tho*

b) On the other hand Staghound (with nerfed armor) is bouncing from point blank.

c) If stuart armor (40mm) is penned why cromwell armor has 0 chance even with point blank rear (30mm) - doesnt make sense at all. Same with rear of m10 and Achilles which is 20mm - 1 pen in 20 shots - even if penned it takes like 2hp wtf.

d) Crusader - frontal armor is 40 mm and its same pure rng like recce - sometimes it dies in 3 consecutive shots at max, sometimes keeps bouncing

e) shermans - almost 0 chance for pen, even if it pens it takes 1% of hp. Sherman's rear is also 40mm

f) it is a long tradition that AB jeep is broken - yes it bounces our new glorious at rifle....

g) chaffie behaves the same as stuart - either dies in 2 shots at max range, or bounces 10 shots point blank - pure rng bullshit

h) Hellcat bounces though it shouldnt at all.... and loses 1/10 hp every shot - another nonsense

i) reliability vs US hts is comparable with cw boys vs PE hts.

*and now the best - at all distances the pen is set to 100% - so no matter how far the target is - the pen chance is always the same. Conclusion - this. is. the. worst. rng. bullshit. ever. And you want to make this an opening unit for axis? Plz....

4. With some units there happens no death critical bug - you can fire at them 3 -4 times and they stand there taking shots with 1hp but not dying. For example staghound, jeep

5. they have 3 weapon slots - no problem picking up 3 bazookas for example...


Conclussion - I suggest major rework both technicalities and penning potential - this unit doesn't make sense. Putting it's weapon in "plane_weapons" category seems to fit this chaos lol. I also suggest they should be able to camo up. This would be the only no camo AT unit in game (beside some hts). No one really ran around with a huge rifle - it was always used from ambush position. It feels like it was really unnessesarily forced to be different than boys - didn't work out too well.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2314
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby MarKr » 19 Jun 2018, 22:45

Thanks for your feedback.

We had to sacrifice some realism for the sake of gameplay here. The rifle was implemented as a replacement for PaK36 and so it was needed to have a similar performance as PaK36. If the rifle was stronger, WM would be buffed by this addition, and if it were weaker then WM would suffer from this unit especially in early game. PaK36 in the game was not used (at least not very reliably) vs medium tanks - it was simply early game unit meant to counter early game vehicles, not medium tanks and same now applies to this squad too. PaK36 at maximum range had 9% chance to pen Cromwell (33% from rear), 13.7% at point blank (51% rear). PzB39 at current settings has 10% at both front and rear at any distance. The frontal penetration actually does not differ that much from PaK36, rear differs, true, but this rifle is simply not meant to be counter for these tanks.

As for light tanks, here the penetration chances are, again, similar to PaK36 in order not mess up early game balance.
PaK36 vs Stuarts (also Chaffee and Crusader - they don't have separate armor types in BK):
front: 23.6% (max range)/ 35% (min range)
rear: 54.9% (max range)/ 83% (min range)

PzB39:
front: 25% (any range)/ 50% (any range)

Yes, the penetration chances don't change with distance but given the fact that this squad was made with ranged combat as its main purpose, it shouldn't cause too much trouble. It makes sense for PaK36 because it can camo and wait for the target to get in range but since this squad cannot use camo, there is little sense in trying to "rush" the target, PzB39 is accurate enough even at max range so it does not need any "close-in" maneuver for some considerable accuracy bonus.

So hopefully this shed some light into these:
The New BK Champion wrote:a) Recce is the most important thing to balance here I think. (...)
b) On the other hand Staghound (with nerfed armor) is bouncing from point blank.
c) If stuart armor (40mm) is penned why cromwell armor has 0 chance even with point blank rear (30mm) - doesnt make sense at all. Same with rear of m10 and Achilles which is 20mm - 1 pen in 20 shots - even if penned it takes like 2hp wtf.
d) Crusader - frontal armor is 40 mm and its same pure rng like recce - sometimes it dies in 3 consecutive shots at max, sometimes keeps bouncing
e) shermans - almost 0 chance for pen, even if it pens it takes 1% of hp. Sherman's rear is also 40mm
g) chaffie behaves the same as stuart - either dies in 2 shots at max range, or bounces 10 shots point blank - pure rng bullshit

As I said - gameplay balance needed to take precedence over realism. PzB39 is early game squad good for countering early game vehicles, not anything stronger.

As for:
The New BK Champion wrote:h) Hellcat bounces though it shouldnt at all.... and loses 1/10 hp every shot - another nonsense
As already said, the rifle is there to counter early game vehicles, so it is not meant to go after TDs. But we might make M18 an exception, it is true that it had paper armor and with this set up, in some situations, it might be used to hunt down the PzB squad, while it is not meant to hunt down any infantry.

The New BK Champion wrote:f) it is a long tradition that AB jeep is broken - yes it bounces our new glorious at rifle....
OK, I missed this one. Will be fixed. Same for this:
The New BK Champion wrote:4. With some units there happens no death critical bug - you can fire at them 3 -4 times and they stand there taking shots with 1hp but not dying. For example staghound, jeep
If you find other units that don't die with 1HP left, please let me know here.

The New BK Champion wrote:5. they have 3 weapon slots - no problem picking up 3 bazookas for example...
I would have sweared I disabled the weapon pick ups for this squad. It is not intended, will be corrected.
The New BK Champion wrote:1. When the guy carring the rifle dies, no one "picks it up", even after reinforcing you end up with 3x kar + 1 mp40 squad ( btw if u fix this can you also fix rangers not picking up bazooka in the same manner too?)
In the test games the AT rifle was always passed on other soldiers. I will check this.

The New BK Champion wrote:2. When you use treadbreaker ability bugs the squad. The soldier closest to the target, for example the one with mp40, materialises second AT rifle and fires a single shot that immobilises. So for the duration of the ability u have 2 at rifles that can even fire simultaneously. On the other hand if the closest soldier is the one actually carrying the rifle - his rifle suddenly disappears, he stands there for 3 sec, it materialises again and he immobilises, then again 3 sec standing without weapon. Really, really bugged.
The ability has exactly same settings as the Treadbreaker which used to be available to every AT squad, this means that exactly the same had to be happening with handheld ATs back then - if the closest soldier to the target was one of the "loaders" they suddenly pulled schreck/zooka out of pocket and fired it. I will try to find some fix for this.

The New BK Champion wrote:Putting it's weapon in "plane_weapons" category seems to fit this chaos lol.
I presume you're talking about weapon file placement in the game folder...it is not in "plane_weapons" folder. :?

The New BK Champion wrote:I also suggest they should be able to camo up. This would be the only no camo AT unit in game (beside some hts). No one really ran around with a huge rifle - it was always used from ambush position.
I understand that but we think it would be better to have something a bit unique rather than just a mirror of BOYS squad. If they get camo then everyone will put them to camo, wait for Recce, immobilize it and finish it from distance which will in turn (quite likely) lead to CW players camping more in early game because pretty much anywhere their Recce will have chance to get insta-immolized and destroyed which would be a heavy blow for CW early game economy. This means the Treadbreaker would need to be removed and then it is simply (again) a mirror of BOYS. If we find no other way to balance it, then OK camo it is. But I would preffer to try some tweaks first.
Image

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 38
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 19 Jun 2018, 22:56

MarKr wrote:
The New BK Champion wrote:Putting it's weapon in "plane_weapons" category seems to fit this chaos lol.
I presume you're talking about weapon file placement in the game folder...it is not in "plane_weapons" folder. :?


Ah my bad, I'm the one who told him that.

It turns out that if you view corsix like I do you see things like this: https://imgur.com/a/tfw4fdN

But it turns out the new at rifle isn't in a category so its just in 'weapon.' So when you open plane_weapons it becomes clearer: https://imgur.com/a/uA05Q5Z

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2314
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby MarKr » 19 Jun 2018, 23:05

No problem. It is just a bit confusing when people start speaking about stats, which implies that they had taken a look into the files, then they state something as a fact when it is not actually true...it always makes me wonder if I've maybe overlooked something.

Anyway, the file placement and folder structure is there only to make things arranged and thus easier to find. Theoretically it would be possible to have all game files in a single folder but it would be incredibly messy and finding anything in there would take forever.
Image

The New BK Champion
Posts: 114
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby The New BK Champion » 20 Jun 2018, 00:19

MarKr wrote:The ability has exactly same settings as the Treadbreaker which used to be available to every AT squad, this means that exactly the same had to be happening with handheld ATs back then - if the closest soldier to the target was one of the "loaders" they suddenly pulled schreck/zooka out of pocket and fired it. I will try to find some fix for this.


There is a difference, because in old tank hunters threadbreaker ability only the shreck/bazooka carrying soldier would be the one "firing" the ability. I remember that well, because soldier holding kar98 and suddenly transforming it into shreck would be very unrealistic eye sore anyone would remember. I can really bet on that.

As for all the other things, I don't argue if that unit should or should not pen rears of other tanks. I just gave you feedback kinda oriented on realism, but I knew from the start what would be your answer. I think you should try to make this unit balanced but also as much realistic as possible.

I will also once more try to put emphasis on the fact that the new unit is very very unpredictable when facing stuart-like vehicles, which will surely make many people rage and express their dislike. On the other hand when testing them vs standard jeep, out of 10 shots on full distance, they missed only 1 time. Is such accuracy intended?

kwok
Posts: 1275
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby kwok » 20 Jun 2018, 05:48

All the ebps have the treadbreaker ability, that's why the any closest unit will use the ability. Should only be the AT user that has it.
Last edited by kwok on 20 Jun 2018, 06:46, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2314
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby MarKr » 20 Jun 2018, 06:33

@Kwok: If it is applied that way, then once the dude with PzB dies, the ability will be unuseable until you reinforce the squad and the soldier will be back. Not to mention that the AT rifle would need to be added to a specific soldier in ebps/combat which means that once he dies, the rifle will not be passed on another soldier.
Image

kwok
Posts: 1275
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby kwok » 20 Jun 2018, 06:34

I was literally just going to post a correction that I realized as I was sitting on the toilet.

The way that it could be done is to add an action for when an entity picks up the item, it adds the ability to the entity.

You beat me to correcting my own shame and ignorance. Why don’t you love me.




EDIT:
In terms of balance, maybe there's a way to achieve balance while staying realistic. Some of my thoughts are:

1. Make the AT rifle not dependent on the first building to build so AT can be fielded earlier to stop jeep rushes and hold up against light cars. This powerspikes them early game but makes them obsolete mid game, similar to how brit AT boys work. This fix would be a nerf against brit players (sort of... making the pak36 unavailable for WM is a nerf against brits in itself already) but buff against usa players.

2. Make leig18 not a reward unit so a WM player can scale to AT that while be able to handle light tanks without having to trade off a capability (the 50mm AT gun is almost a core unit without extremely forced teamwork. it's WM's only counter to the recce that only costs 5 more fuel to reach relative to the 50mm pak). This fix would be a buff against brit players and buff against usa players.

3. Increase the price or make the 75mm pak only available after tier 4. This is more of a nerf against armor doctrine only because this particular pak is strong enough to stall nearly everything armor doc has. This curbs axis transition from mid game to late game giving a window of opportunity for allies to punch through unless axis uses some of its new early-mid game buffs proactively.... (something i feel like camping "wait for my tiger" fanboys might have trouble adapting too....)

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2944
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby Warhawks97 » 20 Jun 2018, 17:05

Oh, really? You come back with that "Treadbreaker" bullshit? We finally got it removed bc of its pure bullshitness (we had Boys killing tiger engine frontally if you remember back), AT squads that made normal shots, then throwing the schreck/zook away and grabbing the "treadbreaker Schreck/zook" making it shooting 4 shots in a row.

I think only the 37 mm HT was left on PE side wit this ability (or not, cant remember atm). So we got it removed once and for all bc it was just plain stupid in both ways, realism and gameplay and now you are really coming back with this bullshit? No announcment in the past years was making me so sick and mad as to read "treadbkreaker".
We had talks about possible new abilities or making it more realistic but at the end we got it removed from game.

@new BK champion:
Many weapons have no pen drop over distance. Boys AT is just one obvious one. AT rifles are weapons i dislike most in game bc of their behaviour. There is no change in pen chance although there had to be one since its an AT weapon and thus pen power is a cruical thing.

But you find it for 20 mm, cal 50 and so on as well... even more small arms. Thus AP bullets on HMG´s are quite strong vs armored vehicles like dingo at any distance. Only accuracy changes.

But its difficult to change for MG´s etc bc it would also affect its efficiency vs targets in cover.

I did make tests with pen drops on distance for all AT rifles and potential AT weapons like 20, 37, 40 mm and so on. It worked actually but was an ammount of work.

The second reason why AT rifles are always difficult is bc of their damage. Basically an cal 50 bullet or 20 mm would be as good (cal 50 bascially had quite the same pen stats) or better as an boys AT shot. But its not the case in BK. In reality the cal 50 and other heavy machine guns made the AT rifles obsolet in 1942. In game these weapons are somewhat "a magic weapon" that can deal massive damage with a very small bullet.

I would like to see them much more in a support role and fielded in quantity (perhaps even upgrade to basic inf squads for brits). The rifles would have reduced pen at range like all AT weapons and less damage but therefore chances of dealing crit damages to vehicles (gunner dead, engine down, immobilized etc). Rof damage and pen would increase the closer a vehicle gets. Also rifles would have a chance to hit and kill soliders as well occassionally.

Also if you check the 40 mm and so on they all dont really act realistic. The Bofors easily kills and pens any vehicle at any range but is unable to penetrate a stubby tank IV rear armor at point blank whos armor is thiner on rear as the frontal armor of some scout cars.

You can bring this debatte to many weapons in game.


Just my point is: Rework the way AT rifles behave. And dont come again with a silly, broken, bugging magic treadbreaker bullshit.

@Markr: The Pzb39 as replacment for an AT gun? How can a rifle be even considered as replacment for an AT gun? Just everything is different on it. I think that you started the invention of the Pzb39 with this in mind was already a big mistake. Start the project as an AT rifle, not as "we somehow must compensate an AT gun".
Now we got an rifle in an inf squad that is basically better vs Light tanks such as recce as the 37 mm has been. Great....
Just consider it as rifle against vehicles like bren or dingo but not as something to fight off light armor so effectively and such a damage.
You wanted to create "diversity" but you just changed the "design" and added a "superior" unit instead diversity.
Just as i dont see an advantage of US AT 37 mm over Boys AT, i dont see it here. In teamfights this will just again lead to "replacing" the bad stuff with "better" stuff instead of having something different and diversity with each unit having pros and cons.

AT Rifles should act more as a early support weapon for infantry self defense while AT guns should be the actual "denial" weapons.
Thus i would have small inf squads that spawn with these rifles (3-4 men) and no unit limitation and additionally as upgrade to CW inf and PE basic grens. Their primairy role would be, as said, self defense, crippling effects and support which strenght lies in mobility, rate of fire and numbers as well as usable against infantry. In difference to real AT weapons that act as area denial weapons and protection screen for friendly units against enemie mechanized forces.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 20 Jun 2018, 17:32, edited 2 times in total.

kwok
Posts: 1275
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby kwok » 20 Jun 2018, 17:22

Wowee calm down. It’s literally not the same ability as before. Adjustment details are in the original post by maker.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2944
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby Warhawks97 » 20 Jun 2018, 17:45

kwok wrote:Wowee calm down. It’s literally not the same ability as before. Adjustment details are in the original post by maker.


Lol, really?? Oh, it cant insta immo anything above light armor, and?
It makes all vehicles crap again.

This squad is a fucking safari unit! A 7,92 mm rifle that hunts down any vehicle with one shot nicely into the engine (penning the ENTIRE fucking vehicle!) .
The bug affect not even mentioned. Like grabbing a "immobilisation" version of the weapon (bc treadbkreaker is a new weapon in corsix, not a modifier thing)..... 100% pen chance but dealing no damage except engine. "Oh, the shell or round flew right accross the interior of the vehicle... it didnt deal any damage as if it is a ghost.... only our engine suffered a damage".... this silly aspect is what i am talking about. Crits should depend on where vehicles get hit and how much damage dealed and so on and not "Pay for crits" crap. We removed it from brits Boys AT bc of exactly these reasons and now it comes back. Thats a Filthy policy. Reminds me on real politics. "Oh, we couldnt press our agenda bc people protested"... "lets wait a few years and try again under new conditions."

This whole description reminds me on Wild hunters in africa. First shoot the the poor elephant (animal) in his legs, then finish it off. Why didnt we introduce some fucking trophies that vehicle drop on death. Like "Gunners head", "lost wheel" or what else.

I cant hear that "to shoot from safe distance" anymore when it gets applied to the most tiniest weapons in game. I thought nice, big guns got their range, the 57 mm HT wont snipe and hunt vehicles and tanks from save distance.... AT guns have been "ok" for me having huge range.

Above that i didnt like the general system of AT rifles in game. But up to now they were very limited in quantity and faction but still bothered me enough with their safari style gameplay... That Hunting aspect rather than a self defense weapon for infantry.
But we now got even more of that stuff working the exact same way, probably even more annoying as their entire purpose is apparently the hunting and assault aspect unlike for the brits which in the early stage of games have more a defensive nature in general.

So no, i dont see why i should like/not hate it or why it shouldnt bother me.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 38
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 21 Jun 2018, 02:11

I would like to add that the panzerbusche39 team gets a 1.25x accuracy and 1.5x damage increase when shooting from ambush; I.E. - buildings, trenches, whatever gives them camouflage to give them a first strike bonus.

What this results in is it gives them just enough damage multiplication to oneshot a recce or any other light vehicles with the HP of recce in the game. You can test it yourself. Put them in a trench, wait for them to go into ambush and send a recce towards them and let them shoot from camouflage. Odds are if they penetrate they will oneshot it.

This is also a really good time to rework AT rifles in general. They currently oneshot shwimmwagens, motorcycles, and kettens if they score a direct hit. And renders PE light vehicles unusable vs brits because it only takes 2-3 shots from boys max range to kill them(scout cars die to 2 sync shots from 2 boys at squads half the time). Now with this german AT team, they will make jeeps unusable vs wehrmacht because the wehrmacht player can comfortably wait for a single shot to roll that accuracy dice and instantly kill the jeep.

I've long had problems with the boys AT team but the simple choice was to never open with light vehicles against them as PE and instead go for assault pioneers or assault grenadiers. US don't really have a choice in this. In that their mobility advantage early game essentially depends on the jeep and if the jeep is going to get oneshotted from 65 meters then I don't know why anyone would ever build it again vs wehrmacht players. Which means US is down to snipers, riflemen, mortar, MG, and at gun early game.

Just tone down the damage, compensate with ROF or whatever; I don't mind if an at rifle shot takes 80-90% of a shwimm/jeep hp but don't let it oneshot the early game vehicles.

kwok
Posts: 1275
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby kwok » 22 Jun 2018, 00:37

Warhawks97 wrote:
kwok wrote:Wowee calm down. It’s literally not the same ability as before. Adjustment details are in the original post by maker.


Lol, really?? Oh, it cant insta immo anything above light armor, and?
It makes all vehicles crap again.

This squad is a fucking safari unit! A 7,92 mm rifle that hunts down any vehicle with one shot nicely into the engine (penning the ENTIRE fucking vehicle!) .
The bug affect not even mentioned. Like grabbing a "immobilisation" version of the weapon (bc treadbkreaker is a new weapon in corsix, not a modifier thing)..... 100% pen chance but dealing no damage except engine. "Oh, the shell or round flew right accross the interior of the vehicle... it didnt deal any damage as if it is a ghost.... only our engine suffered a damage".... this silly aspect is what i am talking about. Crits should depend on where vehicles get hit and how much damage dealed and so on and not "Pay for crits" crap. We removed it from brits Boys AT bc of exactly these reasons and now it comes back. Thats a Filthy policy. Reminds me on real politics. "Oh, we couldnt press our agenda bc people protested"... "lets wait a few years and try again under new conditions."

This whole description reminds me on Wild hunters in africa. First shoot the the poor elephant (animal) in his legs, then finish it off. Why didnt we introduce some fucking trophies that vehicle drop on death. Like "Gunners head", "lost wheel" or what else.

I cant hear that "to shoot from safe distance" anymore when it gets applied to the most tiniest weapons in game. I thought nice, big guns got their range, the 57 mm HT wont snipe and hunt vehicles and tanks from save distance.... AT guns have been "ok" for me having huge range.

Above that i didnt like the general system of AT rifles in game. But up to now they were very limited in quantity and faction but still bothered me enough with their safari style gameplay... That Hunting aspect rather than a self defense weapon for infantry.
But we now got even more of that stuff working the exact same way, probably even more annoying as their entire purpose is apparently the hunting and assault aspect unlike for the brits which in the early stage of games have more a defensive nature in general.

So no, i dont see why i should like/not hate it or why it shouldnt bother me.


if i remember right, the ability was originally removed because it didn't work (like it didn't even cause the crit intended) and had major exploits with the bazookas/schrecks. it didn't have to do with the actual balance of the ability.
it's tread breaker, not engine breaker and as far i know treads can be hit from any angle. and believe me, i agree that crits should be based on where it gets hit from. this was something i struggled with in my mod when i tried to work out the component targeting ability. but i don't think it applies in this case.
you also make this sound like this ability is either one-shot 100% of the time or nothing, as if an RNG element can't be added so the ability can't be balanced. i don't think that's the case at all.

I wonder if a fix to prevent exploits could be: make the ability non-cancelable, make the ability fire even when target moves out of range. this way, players can't do the rapid reloading by canceling the ability.

drivebyhobo
Posts: 92
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby drivebyhobo » 24 Jun 2018, 02:34

MarKr wrote:The rifle was implemented as a replacement for PaK36 and so it was needed to have a similar performance as PaK36.

That's the problem. The PzB cannot step into the shoes of the Pak 36. It's twisting reality far too much. The PzB's projectile is the same size as a single US 30 cal MG projectile. The Boys AT at least has a 50 caliber projectile to justify it's performance.

We don't have to totally distort the PzB into something it was not. What if the PaK 36 was kept and instead the PzB was offered as a cheap upgrade weapon to the Volksgrenadiers so that they could discourage light vehicle harassment? By the time and place of the game's setting, it was very much a misfit weapon that would only belong in a Volks unit.

I mean to say, if we are no longer bothered about the cancer of anachronisms, what's next? Anachronistic Panzer II and Matilda tanks? Should the tank fanboys start requesting M1 Abrams and Leopard 2s?

MarKr wrote:- AB "weapon price drop" upgrade now also applies -5 ammo change for the new 101st Garand upgrade

Even with a discount, I still think it's very strange to have to pay a cost to equip the standard service weapon. Imagine if Sten Commandos had Enfield upgrades or Combat Engineers had Garand upgrades and so on.
MarKr wrote:Anyway, what is the problem here? If you rather want Rangers, you can buy them instead of upgrading the 101st squad

That was exactly my point. It is bizarre to pay 60 ammo to convert a squad into a poor clone of another. Especially when that upgrade precludes a unit that thrives on stolen picked up weapons. That's a road that leads to CoH 2 style unit refund exchanges.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2314
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby MarKr » 24 Jun 2018, 11:45

We added the rifle to the game as a reaction to someone from community asking for such a thing. The model was available but first thing we asked ourselves was "where to place it"? In terms of firepower it was (realistically) quite weak. If it is weaker than PaK36, the weakest Axis AT unit in the game, then why even add it? It would be sort of obsolete anywhere. So if it were to be added, it needs to have some performance or otherwise it will be another unit that is in the game but nobody ever uses it. It would be even more stupid to make it available later in the game because there it would have absolutely no role at all. So it needed to be available from the start when there are light vehicles that can be damaged/destroyed with this rifle. If you have a PaK36 squad and at the same time the PzB39 squad, there is little need for PzB39 because once you run into Recce (I mean, if the PzB39 has "realistic" performance) the squad is dead so the squad would only make sense in the first few minutes before opponent fields Recce, PaK36 would simply make more sense to build, PzB39 squad would be useless and thus not used. It could be an upgrade...well, yes, but again - for what unit? Grenadiers can equip Panzerschreck which is hands down better in every situation so it would again make no sense there. Also by the time the Grens arrive, Recce can be already in the field. That leaves us pretty much with Volks. Volks already have 3 upgrades, SMGs are useful, LMG is also useful and replacing the Panzerfaust upgrade with PzB39 is sort weird - the Panzerfaust is pay-to-shoot, but in terms of efficiency is better than PzB39 because it can be used even against medium tanks. Also the Panzerfaust is used only when the ability is used and otherwise the squad is left with 6 anti-infantry weapons, PzB removes one Kar98, so it would reduce the anti-infantry capacity of the squad. So replacing the Panzerfaust on Volks would lower the combat efficiency of Volks for pretty much no gain.

So if the PzB39 was to be added in some way that it would make sense to ever use it, it would need to be made stronger than it realistically was. As already said, it needed to be added from the start of the game (elsewhere it would make no sense), and for balance reasons it must not be stronger than PaK36 (because it would make PaK36 obsolete, it would make WM early game vs vehicles stronger and it would also be more unrealistic), and it must not be weaker than PaK36 (because it would make WM early game vs vehicles weaker and nerfing WM early game was not necessary). This means that if implemented, then it needed to be as strong as PaK36 simply because of gameplay and if it is as strong as PaK36 then there is no reason to keep them both, thus there was the option to either make it a reward unit or completely remove PaK36. If it was a reward unit, then PaK36 would not be used because the PzB would simply be better (same punch, better mobility, ability to retreat, can cap points, can retreat if in danger, if the squad is killed, you're not potentially giving an AT weapon to enemy...) so it was decided that PaK36 would be replaced by the PzB squad.

So yes, it performs unrealistically but only for the gameplay reasons, otherwise it would be utterly useless. We keep saying that adding new units/weapons to the game is pointless because the current units fill all roles you possibly need to fill and so adding another unit would makes no sense, it would only "be there" with no real purpose. Then we hear "but it is eye candy and having new units is cool"..."eye candy" my ass, it needs to have a purpose in the game (in order to be useful) and it needs to be extremely realistic too because otherwise comunity hates it and we get posts such as the one from user ArmedConflictMedium-sizedDiurnalBirdOfPreyOfTheFamilyAccipitridae(inPlural)HighestTwo-digitPrimenumber. OK, we will return PaK36, remove PzB39 again and don't you guys even try to ask us to add another new unit ever again.

@at M1 Garand for 101st: It simply gives you more options. Now the M1 Carbines shoot fast with less accuracy, they are more dangerous ar closer ranges (due to faster RoF) but at longer ranges they are more useful in numbers where several squads shoot and you hope some bullets will hit something. However when you want to fight from distance the Garands are better - they are more accurate and have higher chance to one-shot enemy soldiers. When these Garands were given to Ranger squads people reported that "Rangers feel stronger now" so for 60 ammo (45 with upgrade) you can get a squad that is better fit for longer-range fights.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2944
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby Warhawks97 » 26 Jun 2018, 01:47

oh, kwok, where did i lose a word for balance. And no, tread breaker abilities are broke... all of them. It got removed not bc it was buggy, it was removed for reasons like the "Hit and run" on M10´s. Its just a plain stupid ability for reasons i said. Its pay to win and turns the squad really into a Safari unit on rampage.


And yes, lets do what menicus said. Lets use this to rework the AT rifles. They shouldnt be "one men AT guns".

The axis could have it in this 4 men squad but also perhaps somehow available for volks.
And brits the same... one squad spawning with it as it is now but perhaps also as an upgrade for inf.

The rifles would have normal 60 range. It adds self defense weaponary to infantry while guns and stuff provide the actual denial measure.
The difference would be the mobility, rate of fire and the fact that they can be distributed among several squads, thus being not totally defenseless when your AT gun gets destroyed or the crew killed.

And there should be a good chance that a few hits can cause crits untill the vehicle becomes unusable. PE would get back the opportunity of using vehicles as those wouldnt get destroyed outright. But they still would be forced to retreat from action and rendering completely usless due to the ammount of crits. And we all know that PE is limited in early game in terms of repairs (slow and limited ammount of rep units).

And marks, as you talk about "obsolet units". That can happen bc units are too weak (for the cost) or others too strong. Now you made more units usless just to have one new working. Thats silly.

Also Recce is a light tank actually based on stuart. Those shouldnt be the main targets for AT rifles. They should be for jeeps, M20/M8, Bren, dingo, Daimler, tetrarch perhaps...... there are so many targets for them.

Also this argumenation is sort of "stupid". A schreck isnt comparable. And people do build 57 mm and 50 mm weapons even though there are perhaps already pershings and jumbos etc. I mean just bc the enemie has one unit that can be killed by just a certain weapon it doesnt make the players stop producing other weapons to counter all the other stuff. The recce is one type of threat that needs to be addressed with certain units. For that you have plenty stuff... 28 mm, 50 mm AT gun or puma, 75 mm stubby etc etc etc etc etc.....There is no need for an AT rifle to make a unit like a recce obsolet. On top of that this unit is important for brits and the only one that has the mobility and firepower to keep brits in game in harsh infantry battles that go forth and back. Now they will vanish right with the first infantry contact.

So if you want this rifle, then make it as anti jeep/dingo/bren/M20/HT/Daimler weapon. But it shouldnt kill them outright, just as Boys AT shouldnt do that vs schwimms. M20 and stuff should take like about 5 hits or so+ penetratio drop like AT guns. The Rof would be quite fast compared to guns, good chances for crits and fieldable in numbers.

There would be the 4 men squad but also possible to upgrade Volks with it. After the second HQ upgrade this AT rifle upgrade would be replaced by the Faust. Further production would be possible only via producing the 4 men squad with this rifle.

So, what you said in your last post is actually nonsense. I mean what you said is one huge contradiction. Sorry to say it so directly. We can keep both weapon systems, both for their purpose. Schrecks dont replace AT guns, Tanks dont replace Vehicles (except a few maybe) like Recce, Puma, M20 and so on. Simply all weapons have their reason to exist. And this AT rifle should not exist to make all allied vehicles and light tanks (recce/stuart) obsolet and forcing a direct jump to tanks. Thats pure nonsense.

Just done think in the extrems.... be flexible, adjustable...

drivebyhobo
Posts: 92
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby drivebyhobo » 26 Jun 2018, 05:39

MarKr wrote:replacing the Panzerfaust upgrade with PzB39 is sort weird - the Panzerfaust is pay-to-shoot, but in terms of efficiency is better than PzB39 because it can be used even against medium tanks. Also the Panzerfaust is used only when the ability is used and otherwise the squad is left with 6 anti-infantry weapons, PzB removes one Kar98, so it would reduce the anti-infantry capacity of the squad. So replacing the Panzerfaust on Volks would lower the combat efficiency of Volks for pretty much no gain

If it's a matter of upgrade slots, what about merging the Pzb39 into the Panzerfaust upgrade as a combined "AT Package" ? Surely the combat efficiency would be okay if the numbers were adjusted to match or exceed the anti infantry DPS of a single k98.

I mean this is such a subpar weapon realistically, that it became a better AT weapon when most of them were converted into rifle grenade launchers. It feels like such an abomination to have an anachronism push out a period appropriate Wehrmacht unit.

MarKr wrote:US:
- Thompson upgrade returned to 101st

The Thompson upgrade isn't visible.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2314
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby MarKr » 26 Jun 2018, 07:43

@Hawks: WM had their early game AT and it was sort of fine. Keeping it and giving them an extra one would be buff for WM in terms of early anti-vehicle capacity (which is not needed). So if the rifle was to be put in, we needed to find a place for it. I already said why we went for PaK36 replacement...PaK36 worked in its role so if the rifle had similar performance it would replace it and not fuck up the balance. Yeah, maybe the weaker stuff is built even later in the game but how many people build PaK36 when they have PaK38 unlocked? Anyway, I don't see how was this one thing making "every early vehicle obsolete". In terms of damage it had similar capacity as PaK36 (which did not make everything obsolete. Because of the Treadbreaker? As kwok said - it is not like it could not be balanced...shots can miss/treadbreaker shot dealing low damage but immobilizing etc. + also has been said it was not useable vs heavier units. It has same name but also restrictions compared to the original zooka/schreck version that I don't think people would use it for the same abusive tactics.

@drivebyhobo: We're trying an alternative thing which you mentioned which should make things better because it does not have the elements which people here's been complaing about (Treadbreaker, unrealistic performance). We'll see how that goes.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2944
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby Warhawks97 » 29 Jun 2018, 02:48

oh holly.

I wouldnt have even considered it as an replacment unit. There should be different types of AT:

AT guns: Weapon crews, cant retreat, can ambush, very high range, damage and pen to beat everything on their respective tiers and even above (lets consider KT as an "Over tier" that stays above the tier of heavy AT guns), constant rate of fire sufficient to make several shots in a short time, limited fire arc, Set up time, limited mobility, nice denial weapon to prevent enemie vehicles entering a sector, can get flanked.

Tanks: Obviously. High range, constant rate of fire, can beat lower tiers, can be killed by AT, mobile....

Rocket proppelled hollowcharge weapons: High pen, decent damage, no set up times, no weapon crews, soldiers can retreat, deadly weapon, low to medium range, high reload time so that it you can usually make a shot per attack, 360 degree shooting.

Short range disabling weapons: These are stickies and molotov.

AT abilties: such as Panzerfaust or AT nade. Different damag/pen range. Offers an additional, one time pay for use anti tank ability.

AT rifles: High mobility, high rof and constant rate of fire, can penetrate vehicles, low damage per shot, crippling targets, scares vehicles away. No need to close in to vehicles (which is a huge advantage over schrecks/zooks as those would have to close in which may expose the infantry while vehicle drives simply away), no denial zone (or protection zone depending on perspective) and instead `danger Zone´, 360 degree shooting. That means that enemie isnt denied with is mechanized units like when there is an AT gun but instead risks to take hits. So he can engage the infantry but shouldnt stay too long in range as the rifles would kill them sooner or later. So uncautious inf can get shred by the vehicles, but as long as inf stays save there is no chance for the vehicle to beat them just like that.


I think the major advantages are obvious here. You get much better mobility as you have with AT guns. Games that are going back and forth with rocket arty barrages and vehicle rushes the AT guns are at best a back up but wont make it back home+ they can get flanked. Schrecks and zooks are also limited as defense in ambush or single rush attempts. With rifles you can go forward+ sticking to cover while shooting the harrassing vehicles without being forced to either insta retreat or risk a sprint rush towards the vehicle and die while doing so.



I dont really get why this so hard to get and why you stick to your idea "rifle must replace AT gun".


and to your question if anyone gets pak pak 36 when pak 38 is out. Well, nobody i would say. But many get the pak 38 when pak 40 is available and vehicles when tanks can be build. A few weapons and units have "their time" of being in a game like in real wars when those evolve. I would simply try to treat different weapon systems differently. And as said, the rifle as upgrade to volks can later be replaced by Faust upgrade. Perhaps by an upgrade in the second building (so players can either stick on rifes or go for faust as upgrade, depending what threats they face) or simply replaced after second HQ upgrade. When the war evolves. (the 4 men unit could be build at any time though.)


Its just a bit too much when a 7,92 mm rifle replaces an 37 mm AT gun and adopting the same 1-2 shot philosophy to the rifle. I mean really, its like turning a 37 mm gun into a 75mm or 88.


I can imagine this weapon with Volks in the way mentioned but also for PE grens as upgrade additionally to the G43 Package.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2314
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby MarKr » 29 Jun 2018, 09:09

I've already explained it but I will try it one more time and as simply as possible.
Let's say you have your own public mod. You think the balance is sort of OK. People ask for new units but you are hessitant to add any because current units fulfill all needed roles. People still ask for something new and since you have available model you start considering it. Now you have two options:
1) Say "no" (because there is no reason to add anything since balance is OK and units provide all needed support already). In this case you'll be accused of not listening to what your community wants.
2) Consider adding something new.

If you go with number 2) then your way of thinking would be:
make it as realistic as possible -> add it without compensation for the faction buff -> this will lead some balance change -> adjust units based on how the change affects the balance -> (hopefully) create new balance.

Our way of thinking is:
balance is OK, adding another weapon will shift the balance in favor of Axis (we don't want to buff Axis early game; we're adding this only because people beg for new stuff, no need to change balance if it is OK) -> make the new unit replacement of some current unit and make the new unit combat power similar to the replaced unit so that the balance is affected as little as possible

Bottom line is that for you realism goes before gameplay, for us it is gameplay before realism.

We obviously have different opinions on this and talking about this further will lead nowhere so this is my last post concerning this issue, it also makes little sense when the PzB39 idea is now scrapped.

drivebyhobo wrote:The Thompson upgrade isn't visible.
Thanks, I will check it.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2944
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby Warhawks97 » 29 Jun 2018, 12:13

Oh, great.... wait... i think i missed something..oh, right. We changed a rather static defensive tool with a "super mobile version of it"..... You cant just add mobility, rate of fire, 360 degree fire arc etc while keeping the one and two shot mentality. You removed a weapon team and added an infantry squad.

If you want to replace the AT gun with an rifle, fine... but just dont make being a "one men 88 gun"..... Damn, this is a fucking chuck norris joke.... perhaps we enable the CW captain with his revolver to kill tiger tanks in a single shot? I think it would bring back the long missed balance as well....And replace the 17 pdr AT gun in exchange...

just forgett it and keep adding stuff without reason or valid ground "just bc players asked for". I cant even think off anyone requesting new units in this category. I heared requests for tank III´s most of the time or other tanks.
But this is just...

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2314
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 5.1.5 Beta v4

Postby MarKr » 29 Jun 2018, 14:37

Noone asked for it...true, noone asked for PzB39, there was request for Solothurn S-18-100 (people on Discord asked for some Axis AT rifle too):
mofetagalactica wrote:I know that you're not up to add new models, but what about adding "AT boys" for WH didn't they had the Solothurn S-18-100 anti-tank rifle in the war?
It is possible to just add the gun to a 2 man german squad and somehow copy/paste the stats of the "boys" ?
So the basic idea was some AT rifle with similar abilities to BOYS. We don't have Solothurn model, we had PzB39. It was even specifically asked to "copy/paste" BOYS stats so it would work in a same way. Difference is that you never use BOYS vs light tanks so there is nothing to "copy/paste" really in this regard and then the HTs/scout cars are dead in 2 shots too.
With all that angry talks about "rifle performing as 88" or making "Captain's revolver kill Tiger tanks" you make it sound like the PzB in the game performed as a heavy-tank killer. The strongest thing it could take down in the game were light tanks and even there the frontal penetration was only about 25% + it also needs to hit the target and it did not have 100% hit chance iirc. Given the fact that all light tanks have HE abilities, or in case of Recce a solid MG, it is not likely you would get through the 3 shots in a row without losing the squad. From your posts it sounds as if it was a crime against humanity to implement it in bit unrealistic way.
Image


Return to “Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests