madrebel

Registered Users
  • Content count

    13,650
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

madrebel last won the day on February 22

madrebel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

601 Hero

1 Follower

About madrebel

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. you're not trying to be obtuse, but you're doing a great job. "show me the math" when you know we can't as we don't see the back end. you're asking us to do the impossible while standing on your appeal to the authority of the infallible model. pretty spot on. fix it or don't - i'm done arguing and supporting the game.
  2. then you're fully wrong. the model is mostly fine, as ive said countless times. the edge cases though aren't being addressed. worse many comments indicate you don't even think its a problem cause, you know "the model" is fair and balanced. in most cases it is that, in others due to whatever factors, it isn't. fix those and the arguments go away. dig your heels in and you'll continue to have this conversation.
  3. the logical fallacy here is know as appeal to authority. you can't crack this nut as scotsman has X years in the real world with real weapons systems design. you won't ever be able to convince them as they've bought into this lock stock and barrel. in order to 'win' you'd have to out credential scotsman, since that isn't possible, 'the model' wins by default despite the obvious edge case issues we're dealing with on an otherwise pretty solid foundational model.
  4. this is how you're arriving at the silly numbers and how you're claiming a stug3b 'costs' the same as a matilda. first, you're taking the cost of it, then you're attempting to define a combat effectiveness in a vacuum and I'm guessing weighting 'optics' very high in that calculaton. how else can a short barrel 75mm AFV with no turret nor MG cost the same as a matilda when the real world costs don't even come close to 'the same cost'? the optics are ALREADY accounted for in the total cost. to apply them again after the fact is arriving at a bias conclusion. the fact you continue to justify this continues to erode your position. how many more threads do we need before this over matches your mental armor block? let me guess, 'you come up with the solution' ... uh huh. let's say someone did, how many threads would it take to actually get through? the answer - about as many licks as it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop. @XOOM - this doesn't make sense to many of your players. this topic has come up in many many threads, most get locked at some point as there is no apparent meeting of the minds. the model mostly works but falls down in certain edge cases that need some resolution.
  5. not explicitly true mosquito. windows: alt-shift-prntscreen captures the active window only. mac: command-shift-3 captures just the screen you're on ... i think. may be wrong on this. i'll check in a minute when im on my multi monitor mac.
  6. You mean gamepad? If that is what you mean then yes, most of them work. The only 'problem' is buttons are very limited. If you search this forum for steam controller I have a config/write up for that one. It works pretty well but I still prefer mouse/keyboard.
  7. Further - hybrid supply is designed to address one of the core gameplay issues that purportedly drove away players - that being the softcap either by way of flanking or encirclement/cut off. meaning, this type of gameplay is BAD for the health of the game which is why it is being designed out. yet, we're still forcing 'history' at the TOE level all while designing out the ability to create/re-create historical/realistic flanking and cut off.
  8. Blacking out spooner will happen when you sit more upright. There are RaF test reports stating RaF test pilot in a 109 pulling out of a dive that caused the chasing spit pilot to black out badly. 109 pilot was fine. I forget it it was the spit2 or 5 that got double foot rests on the pedals to elevate the legs more, may have not been standard till the 5. Later allied pilots get gsuits for their legs and gyro ace maker gunsights.
  9. spits aren't really doing anything they couldn't ... there are issues with it but for the most part how it flys isn't the big issue. however, since we're all about history, how come hurricanes don't out number spitfires 3:1 throughout '1940' and 2:1 throughout '1941'? we're forced to use a ton of Pz2s cause 'history' yet that same history doesn't get extended to the RaF. further, the germans had a 2:1 bomber advantage in '1940' yet the allies have tons of bombers in tier0. france should have mostly h75s as stand ins for the mb150 and ms406 yet they aren't forced to use that. its ... a real curious application of 'history' atm.
  10. Maybe - don't forget about the Union Bank Corp connection with Thyssen. Germany running rough shod over the oil doesn't necessarily mean the US gets frozen out.
  11. shouldn't be hard. you design it such that supply en route can never be reduced below x%. this gives you two abilities to reduce supply factory bombing = supply timers increase by X destroying supply convoys enroute = supply arriving at the front can be reduced by Y will take a bit of tweaking and will vary by population levels but you don't want to give people are reason to not login or unsub. IMO, the RDP timers at present are too high - but - we're at an in game population level where it doesn't really matter/hurt. if we had more people, it would be awful. further, if we had the ability to interdict X% en-route after its produced you can lower the max resupply timer as the interdiction en-route actually hurts a LOT more. 5-15% advantage IMO is what you want to shoot for if one side perfectly executes both RDP and supply interdiction. some may argue 5-15% advanage isn't enough but gamers will do incredible(ly stupid) things to gain tiny advantages and 5-15% map wide or say in a specific area advantage with the right population density is actually devastating. i'd start at shooting for 5% then ramp up till it sucks, then quickly step back a few % till it fits.
  12. sam i am
  13. thats a fieseler storch, its 'AN' example of a recon capable plane, not the only - and certainly wouldn't have been sent out over enemy air space where there was any expectation of contact with the enemy. their primary missions were NOT recon either. medi-vac, forward air control, and liason were its primary duties. behind the lines recon was the job of un/armed fighters with camera packages and typically bombers configured for specialized high altitude work with multiple cameras instead of bombs.
  14. on point 2 .. why? why would you limit a plane to some silly unrealistic setting? it seems like you're trying to create a unit that is hard to spot and hard to shoot down by way of its UFO like ability to stay aloft at super low speeds? again, why? unarmed recon spitfires were a good deal faster than regular spitfires. unarmed recon 109s, same thing. that alone makes them hard to shoot down but more importantly fits the theme of the game in that, we at a minimum all want 'weapons' in game to adhere as closely as possible to realistic performances.
  15. finally - something i can agree with you on. however, i'd stipulate ground only. very few occurrences of captured planes being used in combat and I'm guessing this has to do with the speed of combat, even with markings its hard to ID planes at speed. The Italians used a captured P-38 to shoot down at least one B-24. I know KG 200 DID operate captured allied planes however these were mostly recon or transport missions. I'm not aware of any combat missions conducted where munitions were expended. I'd also do it as a certain percentage per town/flag capped would get 'pooled'. once the pool is full you get X of A,B,C units. I'd preference AT guns, then tanks. Example: Cap 10 towns, get a few guns and tanks to use.