tater

Registered Users
  • Content count

    13,088
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

tater last won the day on May 30

tater had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

381 Salty

About tater

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Navy
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. So attackers never want to actually attack, just sneak. Yuck. Their ZOC is at the jumping off point, be it the FB, or the FMS. The problem of course is that the defenders still appear after the fact. On many occasions I have been the first to spawn into a defense, ran out on the depot roof to look for the opel I hear in the distance—and get shot by someone LOUD and close. EWS in chat. Despawn where I am. Find town. Make mission at spawnable... by the time I have done that the ei are already in town, or at the outskirts. I'm cool with requiring a spawnable as the first attack, mind you. So under the above idea, every town would have the spawnables capped all the time. The point of the AO was supposed to be so the defenders would make a defense, right? It's still lipstick on a pig—the current capture system is awful. I still like the idea of persistent, defensive MSPs best. Maybe the MSPs even have an AI LMG/ATG nearby (in which case the ones now go away). They have limited spawn lists, slow resupply. Maybe they have to be blown to turn the radio on to cap the CP? So instead of knowing where to park to avoid AI, you don't even know where the AI starts. If it fires, the EWS makes that mission active, first responders don't have to make a mission, they spawn right there.
  2. This is the point of a large % of my posts with suggestions. It's why the battles I like (regardless of what side of the AO I'm on) have separated depots, or other geographical features that REQUIRE the side attacking to actually attack to take it (or take it back). That spacing allows the defense to shoot people outside CBQ range. It forces the attackers to move up armor, or pop smoke... bases of fire, fire and movement. All the things that make it occasionally feel immersive. It's why I always want "on sides" rules. The people against this are in fact the "turtles." They don't want to really attack. As attackers from 360 degrees they always know where the enemy is—directly in front of them. They claim to be "flanking," when there is never a flank. So yeah, everything in ww2ol is exactly backwards. Regarding trenches and PPOs, they need persistence to allow people who want to noodle around with this stuff to do it in advance.
  3. The odd thing about trenches is that the only side that has a reasonable chance to build a trench that will be seen in combat is the attacker (once novelty wears off). Why? Because the attackers either know where they WILL attack, and can build a trench system well in advance, OR some player(s) can set out from an FB, and build one, then get on side chat and let HC know they have prepped someplace for attack with an offensive trench (say overlooking a town to be attacked)—resulting in a subsequent AO placement. Defense in ww2ol is nearly 100% reactive. Yeah, there will be side chat about where we think the next enemy AO will be, but even if we jump to that town to proactively defend, there is no possible way to move out an FMS, then build a real defensive trench system in time with just a few players (we lack the player numbers to have 20 people building a trench that will disappear in X amount of time on the off chance the enemy decides to AO the place). IMO there needs to be a system of accelerated building possible. Maybe a super engineer of which there is ONE in the spawn list for each BDE/Garrison, and that unit is only in the spawn list if there is no AO on the town. Super engineer builds trenches really fast. Maybe the unit only spawns at the AB.
  4. Cool, there were a couple things invented not far from where I live that the US could use... one I would have been able to see out my window: This is surprisingly close to the angle from my house, though a foreground range would block the bottom.
  5. Yeah, I think my slowdowns were related to mortar fire. Germans laid down an impressive barrage, my FR dropped. (BTW, it was an open field between a pine forest and town edge, and it was a great little skirmish. They had FMS in woods, beyond a small rise, and were trying to advance vs a few of us in buildings, and a MG and my rifle in a small tree berm. Smoke to advance, MG trying to suppress us... nicely done.)
  6. Don't release broken stuff, then wait decades to fix it, release it right the first time. Seems like a no-brainer. Also, the FG42 is not gone, it's in the FJ units which it was designed specifically for, and was deployed in. They can be used at will. BTW, should they ever get the M1 Carbine done, I would want that properly done right when released as well. Let people test it, if it's too accurate, whatever, then fix it immediately (if loads of testing is needed for people to wring it out). Partially in response to the StG 44, the M1 carbine was actually field converted to select fire (the M2 carbine)—the initial spec for the carbine before the war was select fire, but they adopted it as a semi to start (it was to replace 1911 pistols). Anyway, if that was goofy in full auto recoil, etc, I'd want that done right as well. Do everything right the first time.
  7. Because no new anything should be added that needs fixing. Add it in right the first time. EDIT: BTW, I never said it needs fixing, I said IF it needs fixing, it should be fixed. I have no idea, hard to tell just from being shot at.
  8. 88 Dive bomber Heavy bomber (111 is barely heavy, but Allies only have light bomber, the A-20 doesn't even rate a "B" from the USAAF). All in the game since the very start, too, right (or was the 111 a little after the start?).
  9. You manage to somehow miss my entire point, either intentionally, or because you are too biased to care. The StG44 is a new weapon in game. Presumably we want all new weapons to be to the same standard of accuracy. If it is not, then it needs fixing, precisely because it is literally a day old. Tweaking a single number if it needs that is easy, and there is no history. If they wait a few years, people will complain of the change, even if the change is 100% accurate to reality, because it will be different. And to my test event suggestion: It won't matter, the StG44 is certainly the best infantry weapon in the game if it is modeled accurately—nothing can change that. As for Allied gear, again, there are whole classes of gear that have no Allied version whatsoever. So just to make sure I know your argument: Are you saying that even if you know the dispersion should not be identical between full auto and single shot, you are fine with that to "stick it to the Allies" over the DB-7?
  10. The StG 44 will still be the best small arm in the game regardless of a "nerf" as suggested by @stankyus. I put that in "" because making it accurate is not a nerf, it's making it accurate. He's also said it should have range adjustment (it should). Making it act more like it should (assuming it needs this) is not a "nerf" except to irrational people. There's a reason the AK copied this gun, then all other militaries eventually did in one way or another. No change to make it as realistic as possible will alter this fact. EDIT: if the small audit he suggested was done, and range adjustment added, and you had an event with exactly even numbers of player on both sides with StG44 taking the place of Kar98s in the German list, vs the usual US, who wins that fight? I think the Germans do almost every time.
  11. Win/loss stats tell us exactly nothing about the relative strength of weapons in ww2ol, it tells us which side had the most players on a given campaign. Do the stats show campaigns where the numbers were basically even in all TZs, then we could compare who won those?
  12. Not if they contain a suggested speed
  13. Do whatever to the DB-7, just give the US the most produced A-20, the A-20G (2850 built). 6 0.50s in the nose, 2 in a dorsal turret, one flex .50 ventral, 1800kg bombs. (and with real ammo)
  14. It did. The adjustment buttons are clearly visible. BTW, while clamping that in a bench gives inherent accuracy data, the ability to point that weapon is a function of the parallax between the front post and rear sight—which is bizarrely far forward in the StG44. That has to negatively impact the ability for an actual person to point it (AK does that as well, which is... weird).
  15. 14. Last night there were a few times I MSP spawned and there was no spawn object. Once it was in a trench system, so I assume the spawn object was supposed to be the little spawn bunker? Once I just appeared in a bush. The lack of said spawn object meant an exit was an MIA, and no resupply.