Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 62
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 22 Sep 2018, 01:48

Let's compare Defensive Doctrine vehicles to WH's 2 other doctrines:

Terror and Blitz Doctrines
Stug 4: 400 mp / 40 fuel
or
Stug 3: 350 mp / 40 fuel

Both very good tanks able to take on all manners of vehicles and have good chances of beating any type of sherman from a defensive position. Stug 4 can go into ambush and get deadly first strike bonuses against enemy units.

Defensive Doctrine
Marder 1: 360 mp / 40 fuel

Gets killed by 37mm at gun. Gets circled to death by M8's(Greyhound). Gets blown to smithereens if it stays long enough under LMG fire or if an HMG activates AP rounds. Has no potential to ambush any allied tank unlike the Stug 4. Any sherman(except croc) can drive up to it, blow it up, and say to themselves 'veterancy/XP well earned.'

Terror and Blitz Doctrines
Puma: 325 mp / 25 fuel

Very good anti infantry unit. Can move in and out of battle fast. Has good chances when taking on enemy armored light vehicles. Can sometimes bounce 37mm rounds from units like the M8. Can go into anti air mode to take on planes.

Defensive Doctrine
20mm Flak Halftrack: 300 mp / 35 fuel

Not that good against infantry. Being based on a halftrack means it has halftrack downsides(such as speed and no chance to bounce 37mm guns like puma). Has low chances of beating other armored light vehicles. Does not have anti air mode.

Flakpanzer 38(t) Gepard: 320 mp / 30 fuel

Almost same problems as 20mm halftrack except it's slower and it has a turret that can't rotate 360 degrees.

Blitz Doctrine
37mm Pak Halftrack: 280 mp / 30 fuel

Can switch to HE mode for 15 munitions. Does good damage to light vehicles with AP. Absolutely great damage with HE mode against infantry and can stay in HE mode permanently if it wants to.

Def Doctrine
75mm KwK Halftrack: 300 mp / 35 fuel

Gets a weak front gunner MG. Has to pay 25 munitions each for AP and HE to equip them. Has to use another 35 munitions to fire HE rounds on a timer(max you can fire is 3 on this). Has to pay 75 munitions to fire AP rounds which is not going change much of the odds as expected of a gun of this caliber.

---

Also, the Jagdpanzer IV/48 (Sd.Kfz. 162) is overpriced. There's a reason most people use the hetzer and it was not just because it had flank speed; It was cheaper, pretty much sported the same gun, and did as well as the JP4 in terms of taking on intended targets. 500 mp / 60 fuel for this one tank whose sole goal is to counter mediums or lower is too much. 2 JP4s are 1000 MP and 120 fuel. In which case, 2 Panzer IV's would have done better and would be good against infantry too. Not to mention it becomes obsolete in def doc once you unlock the upgunned Jagdpanzer after it due to how little the cost difference matters when comparing them.

---

I would like to see cost revisions, ability adjustments, weapon improvements, and anything else to make def doc vehicles more useful. As the only vehicles worth getting that can be considered doctrinal are the 28mm pzb halftrack, the Grille, Jagdpanzer IV/70(A) (Sd.Kfz. 162/1), Elefant, and in some cases the Mobelwagen.

My own idea would be to make Marder 1 300 mp / 35 fuel; Marder 3 for PE could have 2 shots from ambush instead of 1(hetzer currently gets 3 shots from ambush) considering its another unit that becomes obsolete when hetzer is unlocked.

The JP4 can go down to 450 MP and keep its fuel cost; The PE hetzer can stay the same since it will still be cheaper in terms of fuel. Or the other solution is just to give cheaper JP4's to def doc only so they have more of a reason to use it over the upgunned JP4.

The 20mm guns on the Gepard and the 20mm halftrack should be much more menacingly lethal against infantry and the halftrack version should have an anti air mode. With some sort of revision on the 75mm KwK Halftrack, since I never see it at all in any of the games I've played(except in bk fun mode skirmish battles against the AI).

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 459
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby Jalis » 22 Sep 2018, 03:50

I m not sure it is fair to compare the marder I with the stug. It is simply not the same class or tier (like you want).

The stug is a combat armoured vehicle. The marder is an ersatz. You can complain however the marder is too expensive or the stug is too cheap*. Anyway there is, imo, not enough cost difference between vehicles at bk for lowest tier one can be really interesting.

Point despite I pointed it 6 years ago, the geschutzwagen still fire HE round for free. Standard shell are good AT shell like the pak 40, but are also good anti infantery, since they have the 7 circle radius effect as well as same distance and AOE damage than 75 mm HE … except you deal 90-120 damage instead of 95 for HE.
If you are lucky and two enemy vehicle are close for each other, you can even kill both at once. Nashorn have the same bug (also report long years ago)

Last a typing error make the marder 1 to enjoy a +10 sight radius (sight package 50 instead 40 for all others)

* same thing apply to JPIV, perhaps really it is the hetzer who is too cheap or too powerful.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3072
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby Warhawks97 » 22 Sep 2018, 07:33

Some might be overpriced but stugs and puma are currently the new term for super cost effective.

I am against a 300 mp marder. It still has high range and rof as well es pen power..Also deadly HE and a top mounted mg42. 350 mp might be ok but less than that is quite ok since a it would be some sort of ultimate counter..sure it can die by 37 mm but those are the only real cost effective counters. Keep it behind your Volks line an no tank or vehicle bothers you. Since def doc has also good arty potential to kill at guns.
It's cp an upgrade free unlike M10 and is decently well vs tanks as well as inf unlike hetzer. I didn't play def doc often but that paired with blposted Volks have been my core spam element. The 20 mm HT as well. More fuel than a puma but 300 mp for a weapon that shreds light vehicles and inf quite well is nothing I say no to. It's also cheaper than US M16 or greyhound which in either case perform worse vs inf or vehicles.

The jp 4 could be a Def doc only vehicle perhaps while hetzer is only PE. So Def doc would have both versions of small production jp iv types while pe has the hetzer as most used produced td as well as the iv/70 as most build jp/iv type.
Hetzer is a bit cheaper but jp iv a bit better armored. For slightly more fuel.

Perhaps we should take all factions vehicles into this comparison instead of comparing it only to the axis hyper cost effective one.

I mean even a Stuart cost over 300 mp and does by far worse than this Marder.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 62
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 22 Sep 2018, 12:04

Jalis wrote:Point despite I pointed it 6 years ago, the geschutzwagen still fire HE round for free. Standard shell are good AT shell like the pak 40, but are also good anti infantery, since they have the 7 circle radius effect as well as same distance and AOE damage than 75 mm HE … except you deal 90-120 damage instead of 95 for HE.
If you are lucky and two enemy vehicle are close for each other, you can even kill both at once. Nashorn have the same bug (also report long years ago)


I checked this some time ago and I thought only nashorn had this, good to know.

Warhawks97 wrote:
I am against a 300 mp marder. It still has high range and rof as well es pen power..Also deadly HE and a top mounted mg42. 350 mp might be ok but less than that is quite ok since a it would be some sort of ultimate counter..sure it can die by 37 mm but those are the only real cost effective counters. Keep it behind your Volks line an no tank or vehicle bothers you. Since def doc has also good arty potential to kill at guns.


Oh, I thought the marder had a weak MG frontgunner like the M18 hellcat did, turns out it does not(if that helps explain why I thought it should be cheaper because I assumed the front MG to be 'non-functional'). It's strange because all the MG's in the game act very differently even though they should be the same 'weapon.' I think when the 50cal gets changed, the M18's 50cal should also be an upgradable 'real' 50cal because the current one is very strange to look at. Like it's there to look 'cool' on the tank and not actually be very effective.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3072
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby Warhawks97 » 22 Sep 2018, 14:35

MenciusMoldbug wrote:



Oh, I thought the marder had a weak MG frontgunner like the M18 hellcat did, turns out it does not(if that helps explain why I thought it should be cheaper because I assumed the front MG to be 'non-functional'). It's strange because all the MG's in the game act very differently even though they should be the same 'weapon.' I think when the 50cal gets changed, the M18's 50cal should also be an upgradable 'real' 50cal because the current one is very strange to look at. Like it's there to look 'cool' on the tank and not actually be very effective.


Yeah, marder has a "real MG" that really kills stuff.


There is another similiar issue.

The 75 mm Halftracks have a coaxial MG mounted next to the gun with very little or non effect like coaxial MG´s.
The same weapon is mounted on the Puma version with that stubby 75 mm (reward for the 50 mm) just using top mounted MG42 stats.

Thus both vehicles cost about the same (350 MP or so) just with the difference that the 234 has a deadly shredding MG next to its gun while the Halftracks have that totally broken coaxial MG stats. Thus to units costing the same with actually exact same armament just using the good stats, the other the bad stats for the MG.


The cal 50 belong also to this category of weird weapons. The Inf doc emplacment is actually the only real cal 50 in game (with AP rounds), the CW is just accurate and all the crap mounted on US vehicles and tanks is just shitty and could be all as upgrade but then `real´cal 50.

If you wanna check also: The Shermans or allis coaxial and Hull MG´s have a 35% pen chance vs PE light vehicles while the cal 50 has just 1%. Also a cal 30 bullet dealed more damage than the cal 50 due to weird TT damage modifiers. So whenever you think your recce or sherman killed a PE light vehicle with its cal 50, it was the coax and hull cal 30 that did the job.

Thats something i figured out in a testing session with Tiger by accident :D
I was really baffled.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2461
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby MarKr » 22 Sep 2018, 17:29

MenciusMoldbug wrote:Flakpanzer 38(t) Gepard: 320 mp / 30 fuel
Armor is sort of "meh", gun quite good but because of mobility and lack of rotating turret you don't get to use it that often, no abilities...it seems to me as one more example of unit which "is there just to have more units".

MenciusMoldbug wrote:Def Doctrine
75mm KwK Halftrack: 300 mp / 35 fuel

Gets a weak front gunner MG. Has to pay 25 munitions each for AP and HE to equip them. Has to use another 35 munitions to fire HE rounds on a timer(max you can fire is 3 on this). Has to pay 75 munitions to fire AP rounds which is not going change much of the odds as expected of a gun of this caliber.
I was thinking that perhaps instead of the AP ability which is very costly and does very little, as you say, perhaps these units (along with the Puma with this cannon) could get the "HEAT/c" ability that the Stubby PIVs have. It fires a single shot which has highly increased penetrative potential at the cost of lower range. Those timed HE could either be replaced by a single HE shot, or HE mode, similarly to what the 37mm HT has.
It would be more useful, more dangerous but on the other hand also vulnerable due to its light armor.
Image

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 62
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 22 Sep 2018, 18:10

MarKr wrote:I was thinking that perhaps instead of the AP ability which is very costly and does very little, as you say, perhaps these units (along with the Puma with this cannon) could get the "HEAT/c" ability that the Stubby PIVs have. It fires a single shot which has highly increased penetrative potential at the cost of lower range. Those timed HE could either be replaced by a single HE shot, or HE mode, similarly to what the 37mm HT has.
It would be more useful, more dangerous but on the other hand also vulnerable due to its light armor.


I very much like the idea of changing these AP shells into HEAT and making the 75mm KwK have an HE mode. I feel like it's the one halftrack that really deserved that mode and Defensive Doctrine doesn't really get to play around with heavy armor barring the Elefant. So it's one advantage they could have considering how the other 2 doctrines vehicle arsenals are much better.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3795
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby Tiger1996 » 22 Sep 2018, 22:05

PE Opel Blitz with 20mm Flak 38 - 330 MP/15 Fuel (deploy-able from HQ) I think this unit is over-priced and should get a cost reduction.
Specifically if 50.cal would be finally improved becoming "real" 50.cal and no longer outclassed by 30.cal anymore.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2461
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby MarKr » 23 Sep 2018, 08:44

Warhawks97 wrote:The 75 mm Halftracks have a coaxial MG mounted next to the gun with very little or non effect like coaxial MG´s.
The same weapon is mounted on the Puma version with that stubby 75 mm (reward for the 50 mm) just using top mounted MG42 stats.

Thus both vehicles cost about the same (350 MP or so) just with the difference that the 234 has a deadly shredding MG next to its gun while the Halftracks have that totally broken coaxial MG stats. Thus to units costing the same with actually exact same armament just using the good stats, the other the bad stats for the MG.

Never noticed that...234/3 should get the same pea shooter as the Halftrack to keep them at the same level.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3795
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby Tiger1996 » 23 Sep 2018, 12:55

lel, pea shooters (for all factions) should be rather fixed to become sort of useful.. instead of adding more of them!!!

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3072
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby Warhawks97 » 23 Sep 2018, 18:50

Tiger1996 wrote:lel, pea shooters (for all factions) should be rather fixed to become sort of useful.. instead of adding more of them!!!



thats true.

Ive been offering a rework of coaxial and hull MG´s with new stats but nobody wanted to hear.
I tested arround that stuff for more than one year now and made several approaches. First have been OP (Kwok can perhaps remember), i then steadily changed them and tuned down damage. Later added slight suppression but was OP as wel and remove it.


Now i basically changed just a few things of coaxial and Hull MG´s.


The accuracy stats are "ok". Like coaxial and Hull MG´s have 0.05 accuracy in game. Ive set them at 0.07 just to point it out.

What i did is that they got all more realistic rate of fires. Allis are ok (CW in fact has realistic rof, US is one bullet per sec too slow) but Germans.... broken as fuck, like 4-6 and 6-10 rounds per sec with in return 10 sec bursts which are looking so ugly in game)

So the major changes were more realistic rate of fires, more realistic burst durations (pretty much used schimmwagens and jeeps durations), more realistic ammo box sizes and more realistic reload times.

The accuracy at shorter ranges (less than 30 which means that hendeld AT can still fire quite save) got improved from like 0.3 accuracy to 0.4-45 or 0.5. depending.

Finally the Hull MG can fire while moving. Right now its disabled during move. That means for example for german TD if they use suppressive fire, they shouldnt move else no shooting and thus no suppression.
Shermans as well as their hull is affected by suppressive fire as well.


Bottom line: They can hit and kill pioners in the open at range or perhaps basic inf. But late game inf or cover renders them usless for max range shooting (which btw is just 50 for hull and 55 for coax weapon in game and in my version i think). Only when fired from distances of 20-25 they can again do some damage but that means your tank is already in grenade range. And even then Buffed and veted late game inf in cover wont take much damage at all.


But as said, even such slight changes to fix ugly lookings (10 second bursts) and minimum ammount of usage got refused.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2461
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby MarKr » 23 Sep 2018, 20:11

Yes, I know you wanted buffs for coaxial and hull MGs several times and I heard you but it is also about you not hearing me. There is this simple question: Why do you want to make those changes? Your answer was usually "because the MGs do nothing and it is ridiculous because in reality those MGs had a purpose" (not a direct quote but you said something along those lines). So basically your answer to "why it should be implemented" is "because of realism".

What about the gameplay? Yes, you say that they wouldn't do jack against infantry in cover but then you fire an HE shot or whatever at a squad, destroy the cover (yellow cover (bushes) is often destroyed by just bullets) and BAM, squad needs to retreat or die because before they manage to move to another cover, they would move in the open where the MGs can do damage. Even if it is just a small buff to those MGs, it will be huge nerf to all infantry because these hull or coaxial MGs are mounted almost on everything - Kangaroo, Daimler Armored car (with 2 pounder), all light tanks have at least (so Chaffees and Stuarts would become more deadly), actually even Recce has hull MG, on Axis side some HTs have them (especially those with stubby 75mm cannon), then all tanks from medium up, on Axis side the Jagdpanzer IVs all have hull MG + JP, (so units meant for tank killing would become more efficient in infantry killing - especially in TH doc where every TH has Mark Target ability which would lead to buffing these MGs even further). Even now some tanks with HE mode are considered infantry-shredders and they usually only use the main gun with HE shells and top MG, now imagine they get two more MGs with quite good killing potential. Considering that these MGs never get disabled by crits, it would be actually even more buff to those unit's defense because now when the top gunner gets killed you lose some anti-infatry protection and you said it yourself that when the gunner gets killed you often just retreat for repairs because the lack of the MG is really felt. With this you wouldn't really need it because you would still have two more layers of defense. Or Puma for example - it can shred infantry with the 20mm cannon already, now buff the coaxial MG and you will boost its killing power by a lot. We also have units and reward choices which basically only differ in the lack of top MG, with two more potent MGs this the line between these choices will be even more thin.
People were ranting like crazy when hand-held AT weapons got the 2 second aim time, basically saying that the teams became unuseable because rushing with them became way harder. This would pretty much kill them completely, leaving perhaps for defensive purpose in trenches or whatever. It would also make any sticky bombs, AT grenades and similar close-range AT devices useless. Infantry based doctrines would suddenly have a lot harder life and game would become a lot more vehicle-oriented. Perhaps you would preffer that but we would like to keep infantry-based gameplay as an option.

So yeah, buffing the MGs would make units perform more realistically but how much would it be beneficial for the gameplay in general?
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3795
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby Tiger1996 » 23 Sep 2018, 20:15

I don't think Warhawks is wanting a "buff" for hull and coaxial MGs, nobody else asked for that either.

1 thing fore sure, you shouldn't be making all of them "pea shooters" just to save the infantry game-play.

I do believe some tweaks can be made to these guns so they wouldn't become too good or too bad but rather acceptable performance.

For example, they could have much less range.. but then shooting few effective bursts... I'm more than excited to see a hull/coaxial MGs rework.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3072
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby Warhawks97 » 23 Sep 2018, 22:49

MarKr wrote:Yes, I know you wanted buffs for coaxial and hull MGs several times and I heard you but it is also about you not hearing me. There is this simple question: Why do you want to make those changes? Your answer was usually "because the MGs do nothing and it is ridiculous because in reality those MGs had a purpose" (not a direct quote but you said something along those lines). So basically your answer to "why it should be implemented" is "because of realism".


I didnt say buff.

1.For example the axis Hull and coaxial damage per bullet dropped from 20-25 to 15-20 like allis currently have it and most lmgs in game.
2. Hull MG range could be lowered from 50 to 45. That means it has just as much range as hendheld AT... with its almost unchanged damage potential at this distant it wont stop anyone from shooting your tank. Thus TD´s arent able to prevent the attack alone unless they use the suppressive fire ability which is something different. Right now this ability doesnt help bc hulls cant fire on move.
3. They reload far more often and longer (approx after 150 rounds fired in several bursts)
4. Top mounted got adjusted as well. The Top mounted MG34 bullet damage dropped from 20-25 to 15-20. Like the other MG´s and like German infantry MG34 has it and as the US lmg M1919. Its max range accuracy dropped also from 0.2 to 0.15 while long range stayed at 0.2. Also Top mounted got small ammo boxes: 100 rounds.


Bottom line.... The Hull helps a bit against AT grenades, molotovs and sticky bombs if at all considering late game infantry power such as fallis and sas.
The Coax and Top mounted have together approx the same damage output (at some distances perhaps slightly more) as the current top mounts have currently. In some situatins it felt even weaker like when both MG´s aimed at different targets or when main gun (and thus coax) pointed at a tank or vehicle which then greatly reduced the anti infantry capabilties of the tank in this moment against inf that approached from a different side.


What about the gameplay? Yes, you say that they wouldn't do jack against infantry in cover but then you fire an HE shot or whatever at a squad, destroy the cover (yellow cover (bushes) is often destroyed by just bullets) and BAM, squad needs to retreat or die because before they manage to move to another cover, they would move in the open where the MGs can do damage. Even if it is just a small buff to those MGs, it will be huge nerf to all infantry because these hull or coaxial MGs are mounted almost on everything - Kangaroo, Daimler Armored car (with 2 pounder), all light tanks have at least (so Chaffees and Stuarts would become more deadly), actually even Recce has hull MG, on Axis side some HTs have them (especially those with stubby 75mm cannon), then all tanks from medium up, on Axis side the Jagdpanzer IVs all have hull MG + JP, (so units meant for tank killing would become more efficient in infantry killing - especially in TH doc where every TH has Mark Target ability which would lead to buffing these MGs even further). Even now some tanks with HE mode are considered infantry-shredders and they usually only use the main gun with HE shells and top MG, now imagine they get two more MGs with quite good killing potential.


So basically nothing in total would change since the damage output was in some situations even lower as explained. What simply changed is that top mounted arent the only damage dealer. In fact, tanks wont be able to shred enemie tanks and inf at once since all MG´s would need to point at a unit to show stopping effects. The Top mounted is just a bonus, nothing that shreds all inf alone as it does now.

Also it would help many units and tanks that are currently deemed not worthy. E.G. Stuarts and Terror doc Tiger or the KT without top mount.

keep in mind that, in case cal 50´s get a rework to become cal 50´s, they might come as an upgrade and not default weapon anymore. So the ammount of tanks with top mounts and at default and coax/hull reduces to in total three Tank IV variants spread over two docs, two Panthers, one KT and one Tiger.
Units that only have a top mount such as stugs would lose some of its anti inf potential.


Considering that these MGs never get disabled by crits, it would be actually even more buff to those unit's defense because now when the top gunner gets killed you lose some anti-infatry protection and you said it yourself that when the gunner gets killed you often just retreat for repairs because the lack of the MG is really felt. With this you wouldn't really need it because you would still have two more layers of defense.


Its a trade. Tanks wouldnt fight inf and tanks at once so effectively as they do currently for mentioned reasons. At the end nothing would change bc its already the case that tanks get into retreat when certain inf charging the tanks, even with top mounted still active.

Or Puma for example - it can shred infantry with the 20mm cannon already, now buff the coaxial MG and you will boost its killing power by a lot. We also have units and reward choices which basically only differ in the lack of top MG, with two more potent MGs this the line between these choices will be even more thin.


You mean the KT? Well i would still say a top mounted more makes up for the current small cost difference.

I Admit that i had to increase Puma cost slightly by 10 MP.

People were ranting like crazy when hand-held AT weapons got the 2 second aim time, basically saying that the teams became unuseable because rushing with them became way harder.


That and HE made most rushes often becoming a suicide already except for vet inf and cratered maps etc. Also as said, imagine a Panther for example showing front against a tank and aiming that tank. Rushing inf from slight angle or flank would become much easier bc the tank would just have the nerfed top mounted to stop them.

This would pretty much kill them completely, leaving perhaps for defensive purpose in trenches or whatever. It would also make any sticky bombs, AT grenades and similar close-range AT devices useless. Infantry based doctrines would suddenly have a lot harder life and game would become a lot more vehicle-oriented. Perhaps you would preffer that but we would like to keep infantry-based gameplay as an option.


Stickie runs are rare and often only used vs the most heaviest. If it happens in other situation then its due to the general chaotic battlefield and more an sudden opportunity rather than a weapon of choice. Nobody says: "Oh, i go rush this tank with sticky". Those are means of opportunity and as such i even managed to plant them on scout vehicles and Panther G´s despite top mounts.

And that its already the case. RAF uses M10 and Firefly almost everytime they start facing tanks like panthers. Inf doc currently uses M10 (all US docs do that) as main tank defense as well as 76 shermans making it more often into the game as support.


So yeah, buffing the MGs would make units perform more realistically but how much would it be beneficial for the gameplay in general?


Obviously not much.

I mean i can give you values, you go testing yourself. If you dont like things or consider too good too bad, just change a bit on accuracy from then on. Its the easiest way to change the damage output. I started with common and more realistic rate of fire, bursts, ammo boxes, reloads etc... from then on all i had to adjust was accuracy at each range.

I mean you hadnt issues to adjust and change the new Axis AT-rifle squad from version to version. I dont get why this here would suddenly such a big deal to test.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2461
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby MarKr » 23 Sep 2018, 23:50

Warhawks97 wrote:I didnt say buff.
...
The Coax and Top mounted have together approx the same damage output (at some distances perhaps slightly more) as the current top mounts have currently.
...
Obviously not much.
If the final effect is pretty much "(almost) nothing has changed" then why bother with it at all? To make "burst lengths and magazine sizes more realistic"? I dare to say that most people don't give a shit about how many bullets are fired from these MGs per burst or after how many bursts they reload. Investing my time into implementing changes that will in the end have zero or nearly zero impact on the gameplay sounds sort of like a waste of time

Warhawks97 wrote:keep in mind that, in case cal 50´s get a rework to become cal 50´s, they might come as an upgrade and not default weapon anymore. So the ammount of tanks with top mounts and at default and coax/hull reduces to in total three Tank IV variants spread over two docs, two Panthers, one KT and one Tiger.
You're right...If the rework of .50cals should lead to some need of buffing the hull/coaxial MGs then it will be better to keep .50cals as they are. :D
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3795
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby Tiger1996 » 24 Sep 2018, 00:16

MarKr wrote:If the rework of .50cals should lead to some need of buffing the hull/coaxial MGs then it will be better to keep .50cals as they are

Then there is nothing to justify adding more pea shooters, either.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3072
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby Warhawks97 » 24 Sep 2018, 09:12

MarKr wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:I didnt say buff.
...
The Coax and Top mounted have together approx the same damage output (at some distances perhaps slightly more) as the current top mounts have currently.
...
Obviously not much.
If the final effect is pretty much "(almost) nothing has changed" then why bother with it at all? To make "burst lengths and magazine sizes more realistic"? I dare to say that most people don't give a shit about how many bullets are fired from these MGs per burst or after how many bursts they reload. Investing my time into implementing changes that will in the end have zero or nearly zero impact on the gameplay sounds sort of like a waste of time


I wonder if you read it entirely. Tanks with top mounted would get some drawbacks since they wont be able to engage Tanks/vehicles and flanking infantry at the same time since aiming the gun on a tank would make it impossible to fire it at infantry coming from the sides.

It would also make it much easier to balance vehicles with top mounts and those without since the Top mounted MG wouldnt be the lone reason for a tank of being an all-rounder or not.


Markr wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:keep in mind that, in case cal 50´s get a rework to become cal 50´s, they might come as an upgrade and not default weapon anymore. So the ammount of tanks with top mounts and at default and coax/hull reduces to in total three Tank IV variants spread over two docs, two Panthers, one KT and one Tiger.
You're right...If the rework of .50cals should lead to some need of buffing the hull/coaxial MGs then it will be better to keep .50cals as they are. :D


Well, it would be much easier to make the cal 50 as an upgradeable all-rounder weapon than to keep it as an default weapon with slight buffs but being still a small calibre MG with a heavy machine gun skin.



Tiger1996 wrote:
MarKr wrote:If the rework of .50cals should lead to some need of buffing the hull/coaxial MGs then it will be better to keep .50cals as they are

Then there is nothing to justify adding more pea shooters, either.


So instead of adding just another pea-shooter, try the chance to re-think.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2461
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby MarKr » 24 Sep 2018, 10:28

Warhawks97 wrote:I wonder if you read it entirely. Tanks with top mounted would get some drawbacks since they wont be able to engage Tanks/vehicles and flanking infantry at the same time since aiming the gun on a tank would make it impossible to fire it at infantry coming from the sides.

It would also make it much easier to balance vehicles with top mounts and those without since the Top mounted MG wouldnt be the lone reason for a tank of being an all-rounder or not.

So why do you contradict yourself when you say that "pretty much nothing will change" and now you say that it WILL change things. And yes, I've read your post. You basically said you would divide the current firepower of top mounts between the top mount and coaxial and add some firepower to hull MGs.
You say that it would be a drawback for tanks with top mounts. Currently if you manage to score a crit and kill the gunner on such tank, it is left pretty much without anti-infantry protection (yes, it can sometimes fire HE or very rarely score a kill with the other MGs. If your suggestion was implemented then the top mounts would be overall weaker because part of the firepower would be transfered to the coaxial. That means that even if you kill the top gunner the tank would still have some layers of anti-infantry protection left, these "layers" cannot be disabled, though. So would it really be a drawback for the tanks with top mounts? It sounds more like bonus for these tanks because they will have some more effective MGs to repell infantry and it doesn't really matter how much or little more effective you make them, it is simply a buff for them and nerf for infantry.

How does it "help balance vehicles with and without top mounts"? It will make the difference in their overall firepower (or maybe rather "anti-infantry defense) less prominent, so it is not like it balances them, it would simply make them more viable because of the buff they would receive.

Well, it would be much easier to make the cal 50 as an upgradeable all-rounder weapon than to keep it as an default weapon with slight buffs but being still a small calibre MG with a heavy machine gun skin.
How is that change easier than keeping them the way they are? "Change" = working on it. "Keep it as it is" = no work. No work is always easier than work :?

So instead of adding just another pea-shooter, try the chance to re-think.
I have tried it - but the result is still the same. In gaming world a "buff" is simply making something stronger or more useable. Changing the hull and coaxials to what you said simply makes the tanks stronger against infantry. As I said, we can argue how much it would make them stronger but they WOULD be stronger against infantry. And since infantry is pretty much the only thing that would be affected by this change, it thus an indirect nerf to infantry.

And I am asking why it is needed? Yes, yes, historical it is BS but I said many times that gameplay reasons come first. I haven't noticed anyone complaining about tanks being useless because of infantry killing them too easily. So what is the gameplay reason for across-the-board vehicle buff/infantry nerf?
You already said that thing about balance between tanks with and without top mounts but these tanks usually have some HE shot or something so they are rarely completely defenseless against infantry and also the weaker anti-infantry protection is usually meant as their weakness (and thus have lowered price). Yet even then these tanks have some purpose in the game, if it is meant to be an infantry killer, they usually have HE mode which does that just fine. If it is meant to be mainly AT unit (e.g. Tigers/Panthers) then what gameplay reason is there to increase their effectiveness against infantry?
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3072
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby Warhawks97 » 24 Sep 2018, 10:41

The work is done within minutes to change files.
And there arent that many files to change. The Time we spend here for all that typing required already three times the ammount of time as a simple change and test against a bot or whatever.

And as i said, the Hull wont outrange hendheld AT weapons anyway and the accuracy above long or medium range is minimal or pretty much the same as it is now.

i could type down the values (damage, rof, accuracy, cooldown, burst, reload etc) and you can test it yourself.

And this so called "protection layer" you mentioned isnt so great that it suddenly makes them immun or able to hold off infantry by their own.


Also Tanks like tigers have slow turret rotation so taking away damage from top mounts would increase the neccessary ammount if skill required to bear the damage against incoming infantry. Not to mention that current top mounted MG34´s are like cancer. Their accuracy is as high as that of HMG´s and their damage per bullet is higher than that of regular HMG´s. They also have bigger ammo boxes while the normal HMG´s have their realistic box sizes.
So tell me why do these need to be an "Hell-MG" on earth and the rest total peashooters with absolutely silly looking behaviour?
With that i mean German coax or hull MG´s that make 10 seconds bursts and allis hull and coax that have a 35% chance to penetrate PE light vehicles and thus dealing quite considerable damage against them.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2461
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby MarKr » 24 Sep 2018, 11:15

It is not about the time spent on it, really, if had a problem with investing my time into modding the game I wouldn't have started with it in the first place. I just reacted to the part of your post which said that "changing it would be easier than keeping it the way it is" - which didn't make much sense to me.

Anyway, you did not really answer my question(s):
MarKr wrote:And I am asking why it is needed?
...
what is the gameplay reason for across-the-board vehicle buff/infantry nerf? (as I also said, no matter how big or small, it is still buff/nerf)
...
If it is meant to be mainly AT unit (e.g. Tigers/Panthers) then what gameplay reason is there to increase their effectiveness against infantry (again, if only by a little)?

you "answered" with another question:
Warhawks97 wrote:So tell me why do these need to be an "Hell-MG" on earth and the rest total peashooters with absolutely silly looking behaviour?
So is this it? The whole reason is "Axis top MGs are shredding everything with their current stats and the hull and coaxials act unrealistically"?
If the current top mounts on Axis tanks shred stuff too hard, then they can be simply tuned down a bit. But using it as an excuse to rework the other MGs on tanks just so they "don't act unrealistically" seems pointless to me. It sounds very similar to your suggestion to change AA weapons to "have realistic magazine sizes and reload times" which also was no problem in the gameplay perspective and people did not really care, they just wanted the AA to work more efficiently, which in the end happened. People usually only care if things work or not, only a very few players count (and perhaps care about) the number of bullets fired per burst or if the burst/reload pattern corresponds with the realistic ones, especially on weapons which they know that are there "just for looks" and not for any real business.

But to answer you question - Axis top mounts don't NEED to be like that. As I said, if they are overperforming they can be nerffed. The other MGs don't NEED to remain peashooters but the state they are in is not harmful to the gameplay so they don't NEED to be changed either. Especially when you say that the overall impact would not be very strong. I mean, making them significantly stronger would need a really good reason. On the other hand making them only a tiny bit stronger (so that people will feel very little or no change at all) sounds like "changing it just so we can say it is changed" which sounds rather pointless to me. So why do it at all? For in-game conversations like this?
Warhawks: Finally the Hull and coaxial MGs on tanks work more realistically!
Player: They still don't kill shit, though or at least they don't feel much more powerful than before...
Warhawks: Yes, but now they have realistic burst lengths and ammo box sizes!
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3072
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby Warhawks97 » 24 Sep 2018, 11:29

The answer is already written in previous posts.

Atm Hull MG´s cant shoot while moving (which makes suppressive fire ability on german TD quite usless as you usually tend to combine a slight retreat with suppressive fire) and have 50 range. They aint hit shit whatsover. I saw rangers with a zook standing a meter in front of a IV/70 without cover and taking a massively long burst. You saw the bullets actually going into the rangers but that was just effect. Later the squad received some damage and one ranger died. After the second zook shot a second died eventually (the IV/70 got immobilized so thats why it stood there). Its moments like these... he could have just as well run arround the tank and shoot it from behind but no... we in BK, who love more realistic behaviour than compared to vcoh, have to see such freaky absoulutely cartoonish bullshit.

Meanwhile a Top mounted version of the exact same weapon shreds one or two men almost instantly once they reached the range of that MG. Just why does it need to be like that.

The hulls would have 45 range, just as hendheld AT´s, having a reasonable accuracy of about 0.4 or 0.45 to 0.3 or 0.35 at ranges 3-10 and 10-20 (grenade range is 25 for the stielgrenade) and thus acting as a minimum close defense weapon so that these hilarious scenes like those of the rangers that looked like taking insane punishment from an MG right and not dying while others in cover and far away from the tank gets shredded like if they would be under attack of a god damn alien hyper energy laser weapon. The cooldown of these hull mg would be low when enemie are this close but quite high when enemies are at the edge of its range.

Instead the Hull would have made bursts of like 1-2 seconds and killing guys staying that close to it that they almost touch the barrel of the MG. The reload would take quite long after completing approx 6-7 bursts, as you can imagine in a crampy tank.


This is the simple answer behind all that. Less nonsense weapons that just make noises, easier balance between tanks with and without such weapons, better damage distribution among weapons rather than having one acting as laser weapon and others being water pistols with warm watter.

I just dont want the tanks (with top mounts at default) to be shredding infantry so quickly and easy as they do now. But i dont want them simply "nerfed" in terms of certain top mounts of very few tanks (effectively used are two so far, Tank IV H/J and Panthers... also a few tigers here and there) so that they need to run away whenever inf shows up which in late game often happens already.
That "layer of defense" you talked about could be imagined by some sort of "circles" . The closer you get on a tank the more dangerour it becomes. As for now the top mount does the bulk of all that and from 20 to 60 range the damage output is pretty much the same while then increasing when units get closer than that.

And here is were the rework begins. The Range brackets get a rework (bc they are from vcoh). 20-60 range is simply long/distant range for top mounts with exact same performance as if the bullet doesnt lose on power, accuracy etc when travling this huge distance. Just nonsense.
And when already starting with it you can then change the damage output of that single mg and distribute it among other mgs on the tank which get active the closer a threat comes. So that layer defense you mentioned would be changed from "all or nothing" (that goes for the weapons: One does all the job, two others do nothing, as well as for the range brackets and damage: 20-60 range the same, 20-0 range slight, then massive increase).

So this layer would go for the weapons as for the distance infantry is away from the tank. It starts slight in damage and grows steadily and slightly and the more mgs shoot at one target, the bigger the effect.

Walderschmidt
Posts: 82
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby Walderschmidt » 25 Sep 2018, 04:08

Markr, how about this?

1. Axis + Allies tanks that start with top MGs get downgraded versions. That is, .30 cal for allies, and MG34 for axis. Then each player can pay a muni cost to upgrade to .50 cal/MG42 with non-pea shooter costs.

2. All tank hull MGs buffed; frontal charges against tanks should be suicidal from both a realism and gameplay issue.

This would buff tanks against infantry and certain vehicles so their MGs weren't useless, and players could have the option to upgrade pea shooters into real shooters but with an explicit cost.

Then you could do a little flavor with doctrines (an Armor Company, for example could have a doctrinal choice that mounts all vics with non-pea shooter .50 cals) and damage tables (i.e. more chances of top gunner being disabled from hits on tanks, especially glancing blows?)

G

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3072
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Defensive Doctrine vehicles cost efficiency problem

Postby Warhawks97 » 25 Sep 2018, 12:24

Walderschmidt wrote:Markr, how about this?

1. Axis + Allies tanks that start with top MGs get downgraded versions. That is, .30 cal for allies, and MG34 for axis. Then each player can pay a muni cost to upgrade to .50 cal/MG42 with non-pea shooter costs.


Why should 34 and cal 30 be pea-shooters? Axis never had 42´s on their tanks. The sheer rate of fire would make it extremely deadly. In game its a MG 34 with MG 42 skin.

The main issue is that it uses vcoh range brackets. That means that from 0-10 range arround the tank the accuracy is 60%. Imagine a circle arround the tank in different colours that marks the deadliness for inf. That small area would be deep red. Kill zone. From 10-20 it drops to 30% accuracy. Still a red zone. And from 20-35 and 35-60 the accuracy keeps at 20%. That zone would be orange. the second thing is: Why does it need a bullet damage of 20-25 when a lmg34 of an infantry squad which costs you 75 ammo has just 16-20 damage and an accuracy of 10% at max ranges. A lmg34 has from 20-35 range 15% accuracy and above that 1%.

The top mount would simply have 20% and 15% or 12% and same range brackets as the lmg version.

2. All tank hull MGs buffed; frontal charges against tanks should be suicidal from both a realism and gameplay issue.


Nah, i dont think thats good. I did that and belive me, it turned out to be horrible gameplay wise. So i decided to make the hull MGs more a close range defense. The US Gunners on shermans could only aim via tracers. They couldnt actually aim with the gun... no gunsight nothing. CW and Axis used Gunsights with magnification, but esspecially axis were veery complicate to reload. So Axis Hull gunners had better aiming options for range but generally much worse view and longer reload. US gunners in the hull had much more view but much worse aim. Their reload was however much easier as they had no gunisghts blocking access and generally less crampy.

So in short we dont need hull gunners to have 60 range. Keep them as close range defense with best effect against inf that stands quite close in front of them.


This would buff tanks against infantry and certain vehicles so their MGs weren't useless, and players could have the option to upgrade pea shooters into real shooters but with an explicit cost.


I dont think we need peashooters at all. If the top mounted Mg34 would be somewhat that of a normal lmg34, then we wouldnt need pea-shooters, nor upgradable killer MG´s.

Then you could do a little flavor with doctrines (an Armor Company, for example could have a doctrinal choice that mounts all vics with non-pea shooter .50 cals) and damage tables (i.e. more chances of top gunner being disabled from hits on tanks, especially glancing blows?)


Allis would get all their cal 50´s as upgrade and being multipurpose weapons usable vs inf, vehicles and planes and all things solved.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests