madrebel

Registered Users
  • Content count

    12,409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

madrebel last won the day on April 4

madrebel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

146 Salty

1 Follower

About madrebel

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday
  1. This fails to seize on the opportunity for alternate reality and also isn’t entirely true. Germany and Italy could have handled the French and BeF for a longer period of time, it would have delayed Barbarossa sure but ... so? Germany was under no significant financial nor industrial pressure - it could have easily handled France. You do recall things like The BoB and Barbarossa right? Where did the man and materials come from for those? They were being built during the BoF. Had the BoF taken longer ... it would have received the stuff already being built. Then there is The BoAtlantic. Here the British empire was in fact on the brink of absolute starvation. If enigma doesn’t get cracked, Britain starves to death. Enigma does get cracked though and the Brits literally sell their soul to the USA and in turn we begin flooding the island with as much material as would fit. Your desire to place a clock is grossly misplaced. If anything there should be a clock for US entry. If the right criteria aren’t met the US never enters offering to only sell weapons via lend lease. Germany made many mistakes sure but the French never woulda lasted the way they were operating. Germany absolutely could have starved out the brits no doubt. Wouldn’t even have needed to invade. Had they embraced the Balkan people and flipped them against Russia ... that would have been a different out come too. Still though, zero chance in hell of any form of Fascism out producing the USA and Russia combined. Ultimately Fascism can’t scale and that would have ended it no matter what but your insinuation that the Germans couldn’t handle a protracted engagement in France is kind of silly.
  2. no, sadly, we've never had enough support players. HC is in theory support player nirvana and yet nobody wants to do it. even when the ranks were better staffed the ranks were never filled and just dwindled over time. back to AA. making it more difficult on players to get player spawned AA into defensive positions isn't the answer. if it were, without some form of player assist automation you could never have 1 gun + 1 truck gameplay as there just aren't enough truck drivers, never will be, and why force someone to do a crap job?. if you're 'ok' with 1 truck = infinity guns then why is this really any different than small guns spawning from FMS? its exchanging an analog for a different analog ... why waste the dev time? small town AA though, just remove it. replace with something players can PPO plae and take control of just remove the AI function as it just gets used defensively by pilots.
  3. these aren't action games. they're also not games themed around ww2. it would be cool one day to have ww2 themed trains simulated to some degree no doubt. also, these games don't break sales records. i'm no marketing professional but if i were looking to maximize limited funds targeting ultra niche gaming communities isn't where i'd focus. but what do i know.
  4. why should everything require 'teamwork'? right? should getting an ATG into position require more than 1 person? why? here we have a very well defined weapon system, only really good for anti tank and occasionally hardened positions. the atg's primary target can easily and simply be solod. demanding that ATGs be used via no fewer than two accounts when tanks only require one ... well that's a problem. a problem that is going to manifest itself in other ways too. the EI vs tank balance will NEVER be right as long as this ATG vs tank game requires two accounts to manipulate ATGs effectively. this game has always suffered from 'realism for the sake of realism' ideologies. at launch, literally required 3 buttons to aim and fire. seriously? who gives a [censored] if it is more 'real' it felt clunky and stupid. ATGs feel clunky and stupid. as for your comments about support players, you're presuming there are in fact 'support players'. there aren't. no game in the history of games that has had 'support' has ever had enough of said support players actually playing forcing devs to either walk a razor thin line to avoid over powering the role or, just making the role over powered and FORCING squads/clans/tribes/teams/guilds/etc to field one of these OP supporter roles or they just won't be able to compete. support roles suck. <--period IMO we need to seriously start thinking about all the places in this game where we're still requiring "3 buttons to aim and shoot" and think long and hard about those systems or roles. Do we really need them? Have they ever lived up to expectations? If not, then either change the expectation or adjust such that expectations are met but this blind insistence that "there are people out there wanting to play support roles" is just that, blind. My eyes have NEVER seen enough support players yet these forums insist these folks are out there. ok, i still call BS though. *edit* also, if the ML could be moving AI units about the battle field, there is your new supporter role. Send trucks to build ZOCs, send trucks to resupply, deploy PPOs fron/on/to the map, etc etc. Should be a lot more effective than driving trucks around.
  5. because that is not in fact, 'the' fact. truth is players will go to extreme lengths to do things they feel are fun or will gain them advantage. the sugar coating is essentially - non combat activities a re fun things lots of players like doing!. that's BS - the truth is non combat activities aren't something the majority of players have ever or will ever do in this or any other action oriented video game. people will never do these boring non combat jobs as much as we would require them to do it for it to be reasonably realistic. IMO, turning trucks into "jeeves" that you can order around, order up, etc etc is a more sustainable path forward for trucks and towing. of course, i'm wrong though and just around the corner is a hoard of support players just waiting to jump in and drive trucks around ...
  6. there are free open source AI libraries that could accomplish what i'm talking about. just need to teach one how to drive one of our trucks.
  7. odd - this suggestion of yours. i thought you wanted realism as you made it clear you don't like the 'gamey' aspect of FMSs spawning AA guns. I assumed then you meant 1 truck = 1 gun. Now I'm just confused, you want to work around one 'gamey' function by using another one? IRL 1 truck = 1 towed gun. the fact that our game has allowed an infinite amount of weight to be towed at max speed across rough terrain by a single truck has always been 'odd'. I figured you being all about realism ... you know.
  8. because trucks would really need to be an 'AI' for them to be used in the numbers required for what you're asking for to not suck giant donkey balls. i know i know - "but bro there are a lot of players that like doing non combat missions" ... uh huh. then we've failed to ever appeal to this vast playerbase cause we've NEVER had enough people willing to do boring stuff like drive trucks. 'spawning' is a video game constant for this reason, not enough people like doing these 'jobs' in games. an AI truck though has significant advantages. an AI truck is an instant payload type mission. ML orders 10 trucks with guns to drive to a general location and deploy the guns. now you get to escort that convoy and upon arrival, spawn into those gun assets and setup a ZoC. while the escort mission is in progress the opposing team has something to hunt and attack from the ground or air etc. relying on players to drive trucks though - foolish IMO. it will never be done enough and the rare occasions it gets done removes a great deal of man power from active combat roles reducing action in general. that's never a good thing. Order an AI truck to stop by way points to resupply ammo, etc. why have real people do this when a ML could be managing all those logistics more efficiently?
  9. great example of a failure to understand game theory.
  10. This - automated bacon saving is BS.
  11. And this ... less than looped logic has lead us here. Our skies used to be filled with dedicated pilots - they aren’t as filled now. If you want to rebuild this population of mostly dedicated pilots you should consider all the things that drove them off. Small town AI that gets used mostly as a defensive tool by the guy about to die is one of the things that drove players off.
  12. Deck fighting isn't very realistic for the area we currently fight in. IMO small town AI needs to go completely. Everything player controlled though should be somewhat random and in surprising locations, deadly, and much more numerous than planes. Its supposed to be dangerous down low.
  13. imo things still need to make sense. concrete doesnt make sense for anything meant to be 'quick' --- not even quickcrete is that quick. really a nit but out of place details can form bad opinion. something as benign and simple as using a wood texture instead of a concrete one though are simple conversations we can all have prior to laying down real work. if a single negative review is avoided by free conversation .. right?
  14. oh for sure, me too. like a LOT. however - how far IS to far? for immersion to really kick in things need to be as expected or you fall into the uncanny valley. seriously 100% for hard PPOs - tons of them even i think it would be really damn cool. but concrete bunkers quickly appearing hither and yon? idk it just - well prompts this response. logs, wood, sand bags = could be done in a few hours. concrete = minimum 72 hours to set and that's if you're applying energy to accelerate the setting process. if you're relying on mother nature to set the concrete, you're looking at a week minimum. that would be fine for an out of combat action, like setting up hard fall back spots. perhaps FBs should be hardened like this? that kind sorta makes some sense. further, there is historical advantage here. from what i recall reading the Germans essentially developed the methods the rest of the world now uses to 'quickly' create re-enforced poured concrete over welded re-bar structures. our freeway overpasses and skyscrapers all use these base techniques (significantly updated via material sciences since ww2 of course). Given that fact, should German bunkers build faster? the ugly side of this coin though - forced Jewish labor - that's an ugly other side of said reality coin. doesn't change the fact they did in fact invent/perfect this technique.
  15. my only problem is the idea that you're going to pour re-enforced concrete while under fire? it's a really cool model you have there but the actual physics require that poured concrete building to set for days - even with the hacks you can use to get it to set faster it still takes DAYS. how about a wooden structure instead? still a bit on the hard to swallow side but a lot more do-able. i get that not everything needs to map 1:1 to reality - but somethings are also a logical bridge too far. a concrete bunker like that as a 'fast' deployable thing ... that's a logical bridge too far for me.