Rework the requirements for Medium tanks and TDs

[Consti255]

So we ve come here together to speak about this topic again.

Out of all this topics:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4060
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4663
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4220
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4251
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4093

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4655
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4091
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4132
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4093
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3702


There are even more arround in this forum.
They all go arround the rework of these units when it comes to CP unlocks and prices.

I would please aswell ask all for reason and what you voted.

I made this poll to see a clear picture of it for me and the community

[Consti255]

I voted yes but adress more. Ive brought it up many times but dicky summed it up aswell in one of the suggestions.

1- Light vehicles with guns smaller than 50mm: 10-25 fuel
2- Light tanks / Glass cannon medium TD's / Vehicles with big guns (57mm HT, 50mm Puma, 75mm US/CW HT, Pak40 HT, Pak40 puma): 30-40 fuel
3- Medium tanks / Armored medium TD's (Hetzer, Jpz4/48, Jpz4/70, Comet) / Glass cannon heavy TD's (Jackson, Nashorn, Achilles): 60-85 fuel
4- Beefy mediums / Anemic heavies / Heavier TD's (76 jumbo, Jagdpanther, Panther, Mk7 churchill): 90-120 fuel
5- Heavies with big ass guns (Tiger 1, Pershings) 140 Fuel
6- Superheavies (Elefant, King Tiger, Jagdtiger) 160 Fuel

I would like to see a fuel increase while the MP goes down.
Also i would like to see some removements of certain units to make space for dotrinal unlocks aswell

76mm Sherman gets removed from AB for example. Details are found in many of my sugestions.

[Warhawks97]

Not much to say. I think everyone knows my point here.

I think devs main argument against a CP cost removal for shermans, Panzer IV, stugs and M10 is, that they fear that they get rushed even faster. I think they get rushed anyways. Increasing tec fuel cost requirments to actually get tanks (like tank depot costing 80-90 fuel instead of 50 for instance) and an increase in fuel cost would prevent tank rushes more effectively while the CP´s can actually spend into inf and other doctrine stuff so that these can survive at the times tank reach the field. It would also keep many vehicles, light and medium tanks viable throughout the game, esspecially when MP cost go down in exchange for higher fuel cost.

[CGarr]

Not much to say. I think everyone knows my point here.

I think devs main argument against a CP cost removal for shermans, Panzer IV, stugs and M10 is, that they fear that they get rushed even faster. I think they get rushed anyways. Increasing tec fuel cost requirments to actually get tanks (like tank depot costing 80-90 fuel instead of 50 for instance) and an increase in fuel cost would prevent tank rushes more effectively while the CP´s can actually spend into inf and other doctrine stuff so that these can survive at the times tank reach the field. It would also keep many vehicles, light and medium tanks viable throughout the game, esspecially when MP cost go down in exchange for higher fuel cost.

Agreed. We've also already got precedent for this price increase not having a major impact on the flow of gameplay, just by looking at vanilla. Obviously some balance changes might have to be made to units other than tanks if their price is increased, but I can't think of anything major that would be impacted (even PS doc, a doc heavily reliant on the use of armor, can get by quite easily with just light vehicles and inf if the enemy doesn't have a lot of mediums of their own).

I think one way we could attempt to do a controlled test of this would be to get an alpha build going, adjust the cost of the 75mm sherman and Pz4 F2. From there, we could have testers agree that they can only build those 2 tanks, M10s, M18s, and marders. This rule would apply either all game, or at least until heavies hit the field, after which all tanks could be built (personally leaning towards the former approach).

That should give us a decent idea of how the change would affect the game without having to change everything, as the 2 mediums affected are good general purpose units and the TDs available would be solid counters, so neither side would have a clear advantage. For testing, it would also make sense to either limit testers to a certain set of doctrines, or apply the change to any cost-changing doctrinal unlocks that might affect these tanks.

If deemed successful, that test could scale out to all tanks for 2 opposing doctrines (or factions, if a slower approach is preferred to minimize workload). This could then allow the change to move to open beta. From there, changes to light vehicles could be made if necessary (shouldn't be too much, they already fit the pricing structure suggested below for the most part). Lastly, if all prior tests are considered a success, testing could move to apply to all doctrines/factions.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Light vehicles will already become more useful after vision change of bigger tanks.
Overall, i voted no.

@MarKr
Btw; the Crusader, Ostwind, Wirbelwind, & Mobelwagen not only have vision reduction applied to them (while they shouldn't) but also figured out recently that this vision reduction somehow affects their AA range as well, i think because they don't "see" the planes coming beyond 40 range.

[MarKr]

@MarKr
Btw; the Crusader, Ostwind, Wirbelwind, & Mobelwagen not only have vision reduction applied to them (while they shouldn't)

They should. Intended.

but also figured out recently that this vision reduction somehow affects their AA range as well, i think because they don't "see" the planes coming beyond 40 range.

What tests did you do to get to that conclusion?
AA fire is not affected by vision distance at all - if a unit is AA, then it can "see" planes anywhere on the map as long as their flightpath is intersecting their AA radius and the radius is set by their weapon range, not vision.

[Krieger Blitzer]

@MarKr
Btw; the Crusader, Ostwind, Wirbelwind, & Mobelwagen not only have vision reduction applied to them (while they shouldn't)

They should. Intended.

but also figured out recently that this vision reduction somehow affects their AA range as well, i think because they don't "see" the planes coming beyond 40 range.

What tests did you do to get to that conclusion?
AA fire is not affected by vision distance at all - if a unit is AA, then it can "see" planes anywhere on the map as long as their flightpath is intersecting their AA radius and the radius is set by their weapon range, not vision.

Then i am really not sure how that is intended. First; they are not medium tank or heavy, 2ndly; 3 of them are open top.

Unless u somehow made the vision reduction based on armor_type? That's the only explanation since they share Pz4 armor type, iirc.


I had an AA Wirbelwind next to an Opel AA truck both in AA mode, the plane came towards them intersecting their 60 range radius at around 50 squares, the Opel fired but the Wirbel didn't even attempt it. Despite there was enough time before the plane gets shot down by the Opel. Might have been something else, idk... Though, it doesn't seem right how the 4 mentioned vehicles have their vision reduced regardless.

Unless it's something complicated then don't bother, not the end of the day after all.

[MarKr]

Then i am really not sure how that is intended. First; they are not medium tank or heavy, 2ndly; 3 of them are open top.

Open top or not doesn't play that much of a role here. We left the open top tank destroyers with the old vision because they always have a paper armor and so reducing the vision for them would put them into more disadvantage than the tanks and TDs that can rely on armor for protection.

The AA tanks you mentioned are primarily...well...AA units and the vision reduction does not limit their AA performance. I would have to see the situation you described to get a better guess at what happened there but there are other factors that play role in when the AAs target something (it is known that some positions on some maps can block AA for example). When you attack anything with these units on the ground, you should have other units around to provide provide vision.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Well, fair enough.

[Constantino]

The only tank/TDs I think that should be CP free that currently are not are the M10 and StuG III/IV.

The M10 because it is the weakest TD you can get as the US and should be treated as a basic unit like the 75mm Sherman; CP unlocks should be reserved for tanks like the 76mm Sherman and Hellcat which are generally seen as "upgrades" while the tanks like the M10 and 75mm are relegated to a more supportive role later on in the game.

The StuG III on the other hand seems extremely strong, even moreso than a Pz. IV with abilities like the mark target, which I guess to justify the CP unlock when it really should just be treated as an AT gun on tracks. It's advantages should be that it is cheap and easily accessible relative to a Pz. IV.

[Krieger Blitzer]

M10 is CP free in Armor doc.

Stugs in Blitz cost only 1 CP anyway.
And the late version Stug4 in Prop is too good to be CP free.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

What’s so good about Prop Stug? I find it extremely overpriced in terms of MP. It has pea shooter mg and most of time dies to a couple of zooks.

[Warhawks97]

The only tank/TDs I think that should be CP free that currently are not are the M10 and StuG III/IV.

The M10 because it is the weakest TD you can get as the US and should be treated as a basic unit like the 75mm Sherman; CP unlocks should be reserved for tanks like the 76mm Sherman and Hellcat which are generally seen as "upgrades" while the tanks like the M10 and 75mm are relegated to a more supportive role later on in the game.

The StuG III on the other hand seems extremely strong, even moreso than a Pz. IV with abilities like the mark target, which I guess to justify the CP unlock when it really should just be treated as an AT gun on tracks. It's advantages should be that it is cheap and easily accessible relative to a Pz. IV.

Agreed. However i would only keep M18, m36 and easy eight behind unlocks and kept in specfic doctrines only. 76 Sherman being a tec upgrade rather than a CP unlock.

And also agreed to the stug III. We dont need this many abilities for this unit only to justifiy the cp cost. Get rid of some of its abilities and in return make it some sort of "Tracked AT gun" for axis faction in general. That unit does not need mark target or stationary modes or whatever. Just a cheap tank to support your army, not more and not less.

[Krieger Blitzer]

What’s so good about Prop Stug? I find it extremely overpriced in terms of MP. It has pea shooter mg and most of time dies to a couple of zooks.

I think it has better armor, the MG can be improved tho.

@Hawks
Stugs in Blitz doc cost just 1 CP anyway.. and generally, i am not a supporter of this CP re-work crusade, i find it unnecessary.

Also against removing the Stug3 abilities.

[Warhawks97]

I think it has better armor, the MG can be improved tho.

@Hawks
Stugs in Blitz doc cost just 1 CP anyway.. and generally, i am not a supporter of this CP re-work crusade, i find it unnecessary.

Also against removing the Stug3 abilities.

Armor is the same, HP is different for the stug variants. But its not better than regular stug IV BK has except that the mg is a peashooter.

And i think it is necessary. Unlocking the same shit all over again regardless of the doctrine is kinda boring.


The stug III abilities dont really make sense to me. Stug III never had mark target and for fuck sake, mark target is an ability used by spotter units for the most part, or perhaps command units. The ability is one of those "lets add some random ability to a unit to make it somehow viable/unique/special" bullshit we started to see appearing for units over the past years. The current unlock system doesnt follow any logic. Some stuff is randomly added as tec although being super impactfull and doctrinal, meanwhile stuff available everywhere requires CP. If the unlock system would actually follow a certain logic, i would be fine, but it simply doesnt. Examples are the RA doctrine that can "tec" cheaper barrages or inf doc being able to utilize M6A3C missiles on all their troops although being a super doctrinal things, but at the same time stuff like 76 shermans or M10 need to be unlocked first although being actually not a doctrine specific unit.

[Consti255]

Tanks in general got even nerfed with the vision changes, when they operate alone. So rushing a heavy, wont be as viable as in the past in BK. The Vet changes made infantry more potent as ever in the later stages aswell.
So overall the arguement that heavys are getting rushed arent as strong as before.

You can also adress tiering cost for the later stages/buildings which prevents player only to rush for 76mm instant or a Stug/Panther. (Which people do anyway right now lol) Mediums are so dirty cheap when it comes to fuel cost, that not rushing them is dumb, even fore the high CP cost of 2/3.
Lord have mercy if the enemy does it, when you have not a Stug/M10.

They are repetetive unlocks, which made the game the same again,again and again. You get punished to unlock doc specific unlocks as inf doc for example, when the enemy just goes for tanks with a non oriented tank doc.

Quick side note, the tec trees are super hard to understand if you are not a vet player. There are double arrows everywhere ( <––>) and as a new player i would never ever even try to understand it. Why are there double arrows from unlocks, that just are a normal unlovk from 1 unit to the next unit. Double arrows make sense, if you can unlock both at the same time, while beeing in the same path. Super anoying to deal if you dont know the current doc trees with your eyes closed.