HE/AP Switch Cooldown Standardization

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: 99
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

HE/AP Switch Cooldown Standardization

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 05 Jan 2019, 01:30

Switching from HE to AP or vice versa on certain vehicles has cooldowns to stop the switching from happening too often and too fast. The cooldown for certain vehicles appears to have no pattern. Some have their cooldown switch set to 2+ minutes, or some have their cooldown switch set to 15 or 30 seconds.

I would make the switch cooldown for all vehicles be pretty much the same; ranging from 15 to 30 or 45 seconds max. Can also have a look at how some vehicles can do 'double shots' when they switch shell types; which often insta-kills light vehicles if timed right. A solution to this is what some vehicles in BK currently have; which is a certain 'pause' time before they can fire their new shells they've loaded into the gun. That should be worked into pretty much all the AP/HE permanent switchers as the 'double shot' thing is very abusive.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1432
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: HE/AP Switch Cooldown Standardization

Postby kwok » 05 Jan 2019, 07:56

Not promising anything, but since we are on the topic what else could be standardized for good reason?

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3232
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: HE/AP Switch Cooldown Standardization

Postby Warhawks97 » 05 Jan 2019, 17:57

MenciusMoldbug wrote:I would make the switch cooldown for all vehicles be pretty much the same; ranging from 15 to 30 or 45 seconds max. Can also have a look at how some vehicles can do 'double shots' when they switch shell types; which often insta-kills light vehicles if timed right. A solution to this is what some vehicles in BK currently have; which is a certain 'pause' time before they can fire their new shells they've loaded into the gun. That should be worked into pretty much all the AP/HE permanent switchers as the 'double shot' thing is very abusive.


agreed. Cooldown should bt there to prevent too fast switchings, but 90 seconds on several tanks is just extremely long. Its like once you loaded one ammo type, you have to use this ammo type during your next three battles/attacks. Attacks doesnt last that long and it should be possible to switch at least once before/during your attack because your whole planing of the offense is based on it and each attack might require a different ammo type.
I currently feel that single shot HE tanks are much better currently bc you can "switch" your ammo type like 2-3 times during a single assault. Each shot costs but still, your unit offers a lot more multirole capabilties within a single attack. They usually have stronger armor penetration and you might use several HE shots for low cost (both, upgrade and shot). Meanwhile those with perma HE are a lot more limited bc they have generally weak armor pen but and due to long cooldown also very limited to do a single job. I mean thats something we perhaps wanted to or what was the goal but i think with 90 sec cooldown we went too far.

User avatar
Death_Kitty
Posts: 54
Joined: 15 Apr 2017, 18:20

Re: HE/AP Switch Cooldown Standardization

Postby Death_Kitty » 05 Jan 2019, 20:05

What else could be standardized? I'd say ambush bonuses for TD's. Obviously there would be differences between say, the bonus of a jackson or a hetzer, but stuff like the hellcat, wolverine and jackson could be standardized, or the jadgpanzers and the hetzer, maybe even the jagdpanther (all the low profile german TD's) so on.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 99
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: HE/AP Switch Cooldown Standardization

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 05 Jan 2019, 22:56

kwok wrote:Not promising anything, but since we are on the topic what else could be standardized for good reason?


Off the top of my head:

Permanent HE/AP Switch Reload Times and Accuracy:
Some vehicles like stuart take longer to reload their HE shells than their AP shells. While some other tanks have much more higher accuracy in HE mode than AP mode (compare shermans HE mode accuracy vs its AP mode accuracy). I would make it so the permanent AP/HE modes have same accuracy and reload times for both. But if the current settings are okay and to be intended than I guess it's fine.

MK VII Crocodile Churchill Ace Gun Stats:
The other two ace tanks in the game (tiger and pershing) get built-in better gun stats (faster reload by 1 second, better accuracy) while the MK VII crocodile churchill ace does not. I would give it an ace gun as well considering it doesn't come with a tank commander either; so maybe better accuracy in AP and HE mode with a faster reload by a second.

Speed Veterancy Modifiers:
Some vehicles have built-in flank speed when they reach a certain vet. As in the case of the staghound when it gets veterancy 1. I would take a look at the veterancy tables for units again to make sure it is working out as intended because the speed bonus is as good as the new flank speed (staghounds max speed increases by 25% at veterancy 1 as an example).

HEAT Aim Times:
M10 got its HEAT aim time increased to 2.5 seconds which is good. However, some other vehicles can still do the 'double shot' thing as in shooting AP once than shooting HEAT shell immediatly after because the aim time is usually 1 or 2 seconds in HEAT mode. I would take a look at these values again as HEAT mode is usually guaranteed penetration in most cases.

Paratrooper Support Weapons Reinforcement Cost:
Paratrooper support weapons are much more expensive to reinforce than their normal counterparts. Likely a bug carried over from VCoH where reinforcing an airborne AT Gun was like 45 or 50+ manpower. I would make it match normal support teams reinforce costs or be slightly higher than normal support teams.

Stuh and Stupa Artillery Veterancy:
More of a bug than a case for standardization. These two vehicles are using artillery veterancy as in reduced scatter and reduced barrage cooldown (?). I don't know if that contributes to the Stupa's current OPness, but it should be fixed to have the same veterancy modifiers like a normal tank.

Support Weapon Crew Lags:
I have suspected for a long time that large numbers of support weapon crew contribute to general late game laginess, FPS drops, and desyncs. What panzerblitz has said here confirms my case. I would make it so that the biggest AT guns and mortar teams have a max crew of 4. As any more than that is not needed for sniper protection (as 2 snipers will kill 4 crew consecutively so the 5th man is going to commit harakiri anyway). + I don't really like the crews being so big as it makes remanning the weapons a pain and you might even lose the whole squad remanning these weapons.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 315
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: HE/AP Switch Cooldown Standardization

Postby Viper » 06 Jan 2019, 02:00

MenciusMoldbug wrote:MK VII Crocodile Churchill Ace Gun Stats:
The other two ace tanks in the game (tiger and pershing) get built-in better gun stats (faster reload by 1 second, better accuracy) while the MK VII crocodile churchill ace does not. I would give it an ace gun as well considering it doesn't come with a tank commander either; so maybe better accuracy in AP and HE mode with a faster reload by a second.

crocodile churchill was reworked in the past and now it is no longer ace unit.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3232
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: HE/AP Switch Cooldown Standardization

Postby Warhawks97 » 06 Jan 2019, 16:40

MenciusMoldbug wrote:
Off the top of my head:


MK VII Crocodile Churchill Ace Gun Stats:
The other two ace tanks in the game (tiger and pershing) get built-in better gun stats (faster reload by 1 second, better accuracy) while the MK VII crocodile churchill ace does not. I would give it an ace gun as well considering it doesn't come with a tank commander either; so maybe better accuracy in AP and HE mode with a faster reload by a second.


its not an ace anymore, just an MKVII with flamethrower. Would be nice to have regular MK VII´s.

Speed Veterancy Modifiers:
Some vehicles have built-in flank speed when they reach a certain vet. As in the case of the staghound when it gets veterancy 1. I would take a look at the veterancy tables for units again to make sure it is working out as intended because the speed bonus is as good as the new flank speed (staghounds max speed increases by 25% at veterancy 1 as an example).


from vcoh... there allied vehicles (most of them) got better... at vet 3 they get a pen boost which in regards to 37 mm vehicle is quite usless. Many vehicles have or had vcoh veterancy.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 315
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: HE/AP Switch Cooldown Standardization

Postby Viper » 06 Jan 2019, 17:00

i like the vanilla coh veterancy system. and i think current veterancy levels in bk mod should not be changed. most important part is the damage reduction at max level to make max level units survive better. it is not realistic. but it is still very fair. at least from gameplay point of view.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3232
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: HE/AP Switch Cooldown Standardization

Postby Warhawks97 » 06 Jan 2019, 17:05

Viper wrote:i like the vanilla coh veterancy system. and i think current veterancy levels in bk mod should not be changed. most important part is the damage reduction at max level to make max level units survive better. it is not realistic. but it is still very fair. at least from gameplay point of view.



if you talk about inf they are already rambo as fuck.

And no, vcoh stats per vet are tooooo crazy....like 50% damage increase on rifles etc.... also allis would only get damage boosts, axis survivability boosts.

vcoh stats are no option at all.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 315
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: HE/AP Switch Cooldown Standardization

Postby Viper » 06 Jan 2019, 18:00

allies get damage boost, and axis get damage reduction to compensate. so max level units will be balanced vs each other. also allies can over.repair tanks, axis cant over.repair, another reason why axis get damage reduction but not allies.

or you think everything should be mirrored? and both sides get damage reduction? this way when max level units fight each other.....no one will die.

or both get damage boost? this way max level units will kill each other very fast.....maybe even 1 shot.

thats why it should not be mirrored for both sides in my opinion.

and infantry are not rambo. even with max level. they still die with snipers. and high explosives. or does snipers need to hit soldiers 2 times to kill them when max vet? all infantry die with 1 sniper hit. even german paratroopers.

only officers/lieutenants need 2 sniper hits.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 99
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: HE/AP Switch Cooldown Standardization

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 14 Jan 2019, 15:36

I had a faint idea about the Crocodile Churchill being an ace unit for some reason. Might have had something to do with its naming/description or the icon symbol it has on the map making it seem like an ace. Well now I know better.

Going to bring this thread up again because I want to talk about Upkeep Standardization. Lots of upkeep in BK is mostly carried over from VCoH. But for some new units not present in VCoH the upkeep is slightly buggy.

Things that immediately stood out to me:

- Pershing Ace costs 2 popcap upkeep while the Tiger Ace does not

- M8 Scott costs no fuel upkeep and considerably less manpower upkeep than a Chaffee which does cost fuel upkeep

- Jagdpanther having incredibly low upkeep, priced around a bit higher than a Panzer 4 in MP and fuel

I really don't like how lots of infantry units have basically the same upkeep as well. Riflemen, Airborne, Rangers, etc. basically most elite and non-elite units have the same upkeep numbers. So a single riflemen will cost you 2 manpower from your income which is the same as a Ranger. So it's not technically viable in the late, late game to get riflemen again in mass numbers because the Ranger will be a better long term pay-off thanks to this. I don't really like riflemen draining 2 MP a man either because 6 riflemen is 12 MP gone from the pool in the early game. It doesn't seem like much, but in high resource games the upkeep becomes increasingly noticeable depending on how many riflemen squads are built early on. Same problems exist on Wehrmacht side involving Volksgrenadiers and Grenadiers; but it's better here because Volksgrenadiers have a really cheap reinforce cost and losing them isn't as punishing as losing Grenadiers.

I would standardize a lot of the upkeep to an upkeep-to-cost ratio. It would make balancing units a lot easier as some upkeep rates hide how 'really easy to maintain' some units are over others in numbers. An example of this is how a Sherman E8 has the same upkeep as both variants of the Jackson. If resources were infinite but you were tied to a certain upkeep as a 'cap.' The Jackson in numbers would always be better for tank-killing than using an E8 for the job. The upkeep doesn't represent this stuff, and it is hard to notice without looking at the raw numbers in the game files. Certain units do have patterns to their upkeep related to their cost such as the stug 4 to panzer 4 to panther (getting higher the more it costs) but it doesn't look to me like most are done in that way.

On another point, the Scott is using VCoH veterancy modifiers such as 25% penetration boost at vet 2 (which is pointless for it since it 'penetrates' everything anyway).

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3232
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: HE/AP Switch Cooldown Standardization

Postby Warhawks97 » 14 Jan 2019, 19:38

MenciusMoldbug wrote:
Things that immediately stood out to me:

- M8 Scott costs no fuel upkeep and considerably less manpower upkeep than a Chaffee which does cost fuel upkeep


vehicles in general cost no fuel and scott is considered one. In my private version i did add very slight upkeep on vehicles... like two cost 1 fuel in game at the end. So you can spam as many vehicles as you want without any hurts to your upkeep... thats a bit dump...

- Jagdpanther having incredibly low upkeep, priced around a bit higher than a Panzer 4 in MP and fuel


Long time ago there was a replay with double jagdpanther.... i got asked if its normal that they cost so little upkeep (basically as low as stubby tank IV or something).... i provided datas and for me it doesnt look like its itentional, just as the 1 upkeep for hetzer wasnt in the past.

I really don't like how lots of infantry units have basically the same upkeep as well. Riflemen, Airborne, Rangers, etc. basically most elite and non-elite units have the same upkeep numbers.


Its not orientated on what kind of unit it is but rather which faction you play... Brits are generally quite low and their tanks cost not much MP but lots of fuel upkeep, us cost much in both, WH is very low for their inf, no matter which and PE is between US and brits.



So a single riflemen will cost you 2 manpower from your income which is the same as a Ranger. So it's not technically viable in the late, late game to get riflemen again in mass numbers because the Ranger will be a better long term pay-off thanks to this. I don't really like riflemen draining 2 MP a man either because 6 riflemen is 12 MP gone from the pool in the early game. It doesn't seem like much, but in high resource games the upkeep becomes increasingly noticeable depending on how many riflemen squads are built early on. Same problems exist on Wehrmacht side involving Volksgrenadiers and Grenadiers; but it's better here because Volksgrenadiers have a really cheap reinforce cost and losing them isn't as punishing as losing Grenadiers.


in my private version i dropped build cost for grens for example in exchange for higher upkeep. I am not so much a friend of super expensive units which are actually considered "regular units". I prevented "overspam" simply via upkeep... It allows more comebacks for players and its easier to re-create a "basic army" later on but effectively prevents spam of certain units. Currently, once you lost a bunch of units you never find back to a "combat ready" army that contains basic stuff like mortar, HMG and inf squads bc getting such basics requires lots of time in which you are effectively out of battle.


I would standardize a lot of the upkeep to an upkeep-to-cost ratio. It would make balancing units a lot easier as some upkeep rates hide how 'really easy to maintain' some units are over others in numbers. An example of this is how a Sherman E8 has the same upkeep as both variants of the Jackson. If resources were infinite but you were tied to a certain upkeep as a 'cap.' The Jackson in numbers would always be better for tank-killing than using an E8 for the job. The upkeep doesn't represent this stuff, and it is hard to notice without looking at the raw numbers in the game files. Certain units do have patterns to their upkeep related to their cost such as the stug 4 to panzer 4 to panther (getting higher the more it costs) but it doesn't look to me like most are done in that way.


True, but i would keep faction individuality bc that is what makes fun at the end... having all factions differently in all aspects. Thus i do like going with worse upkeep-cost ratio into game as US, but having the advantage later on.... like landing and holding ground in normandy landing is hard, but if you stay alive and have your harbours build up and supply rushes in, you can take the lead. And thats something i just love in this CW-US synergy which is unmatched by axis factions.

On another point, the Scott is using VCoH veterancy modifiers such as 25% penetration boost at vet 2 (which is pointless for it since it 'penetrates' everything anyway).
[/quote]

bc it counts as vehicle... many have vcoh vet boosts.




@Viper: Surviviability vets beat out damage vet boosts. Why? bc it makes you better against all enemie damage types... arty, HE, bullets.... damage boosts by vet helps you dealing damage but only against those you can harm at all. You have a vet 3 rifle squad with massive damage boost? fine, your enemie throws only tanks and arty at you.

received damage reduction and survivability boosts are always more usefull than damage boost modifiers.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 99
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: HE/AP Switch Cooldown Standardization

Postby MenciusMoldbug » 14 Jan 2019, 21:03

I mostly wanted the normal riflemen squad that was built of the barracks to be useful later on in the game. Most people just skip it later on to get Captain BAR Riflemen for 300 MP with their cheaper reinforcement cost. As saving 7 MP per man matters a lot when other things are taken into account.

My thoughts were to have the supply yard upgrades reduce the reinforcement cost by a certain amount till the reinforce for normal riflemen was the same as the Captain BAR riflemen in the late game. So losing 4 men in a rifle squad didn't cost you 100 MP but 76 (or 72). That would require reworking Infantry Company cheaper infantry unlock though; Which is why I tried to think of another way to make these riflemen useful later on. I was going for a lower upkeep on riflemen as a certain way; But I would take anything that gives me a reason to build them later on in the game when I already have a Captain.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3232
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: HE/AP Switch Cooldown Standardization

Postby Warhawks97 » 14 Jan 2019, 22:02

MenciusMoldbug wrote:I mostly wanted the normal riflemen squad that was built of the barracks to be useful later on in the game. Most people just skip it later on to get Captain BAR Riflemen for 300 MP with their cheaper reinforcement cost. As saving 7 MP per man matters a lot when other things are taken into account.

My thoughts were to have the supply yard upgrades reduce the reinforcement cost by a certain amount till the reinforce for normal riflemen was the same as the Captain BAR riflemen in the late game. So losing 4 men in a rifle squad didn't cost you 100 MP but 76 (or 72). That would require reworking Infantry Company cheaper infantry unlock though; Which is why I tried to think of another way to make these riflemen useful later on. I was going for a lower upkeep on riflemen as a certain way; But I would take anything that gives me a reason to build them later on in the game when I already have a Captain.



in vcoh supply yard upgrade increases the exp gain rate for rifles, so generally why not reducing reinforce cost of basic rifles to match the 7 men squad.

The doctrine mass prod upgrade is usless currently and needs to be replaced entirely, thats true.

i fully support your thoughts.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests