Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About minky

  • Rank
    Advance Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

313 profile views
  1. That "cultural trend" is nothing more than learned behavior over time. People will gravitate towards what has been successful in the past whether they consciously think about it or not.
  2. There is almost no difference from these LMGs to their modern counterparts.
  3. The FG42 was 9.3 lbs and had a select fire switch for single or auto fire. It was designed to be a rifle with auto fire when needed. It was not an LMG. If you even remotely think the FG42 should be treated like an LMG because of it’s weight then obviously the Thompson SMG should too at 10.8 lbs, heavier than an FG42. Do make this out as though CRS did some sort of favor with the FG42 by not calling it an LMG.
  4. :: facepalm :: The MG34 is 26.7 lbs......
  5. Would you rather have people still engaged and wanting the problems fixed or just leave and never look back? If people are still coming here it means they still at least have enough interest To monitor the situation . You still have a chance at pulling them back in. Eventually they will move on and you’ve missed the chance to recapture that business. You should be thankful they are interested to still show up. In the last several posts what I see is if you’re not putting cash down all the time you don’t matter (so much for DLC), it’s selfish if you make your opinions known as F2P, and telling CRS what the problems are isn’t part of the solution. So be it. It’s certainly much easier to leave a bad review on Steam and then just be completely apathetic.
  6. The real question is... what are you, CRS, doing to encourage more LW pilots to get in the air?
  7. I don’t know. You tell me.
  8. Well... sigh... Never mind.
  9. You are going to get these reactions when there are decades old problems in game that don't even get a mention in the road map. People can understand resource problems. What they can't understand is a complete lack of recognition that there is a problem in some cases.
  10. The first time I pulled the trigger on a firearm was age 7. A .22 cal single shot rifle. 33 years later after firing multiple rifles, pistols, lmgs, and heavy mgs for 26 of those years I feel like I have a pretty good feel for what's what. I have yet to see a shooter that can accurately engage with ANY WEAPON at the jogging speed in this game, smgs included. Ever wonder why those videos of swat teams always show them stacked up moving slowly? Why isn't the whole stack running like a bat out of hell with their fancy modern smgs? It could be because they can't accurate engage at running speed either. Oh, an you could conceivably fire an lmg while running. I can shoulder fire an m60 and I have run with the thing. I pretty sure I could have pulled the trigger on it as well while running. I wouldn't have hit [censored] but I could have pulled the trigger on the thing. When it comes to shooting on the move this game handles all weapons unrealistically. Every single one. The fix needs to be applied across the board to all weapons not just lmgs.
  11. If this a problem then ever weapon in game needs to be changed. People don’t accurately engage with any hand held weapon while running . The barely do it while walking and even then it’s a very goofy flat walk, not a normal gate by any means. This means that rifles and smgs are also too accurate on the move. It would also mean that all weapons should be changes to reflect that reality. It’s like watching a debate about one side claiming the tooth fairy isn’t real but swearing santa is.
  12. I don't think combined arms means what you think it means. Combined Arms: Combined Arms is an approach to warfare which seeks to integrate different combat arms of a military to achieve mutually complementary effects. What you are seeking is the severe reduction to infantry on the battlefield. That is what the FMS has accomplished. You keep citing "Combined Arms" as your reasoning against the infantry FRU. If your ATG is sitting all alone with no infantry support to counter other infantry you are not practicing combined arms. If your tank is all alone with no infantry cover, you are not practicing combined arms. You also seem to think that fronts should somehow be liner with little to no way for the enemy to end up behind you and somehow claim that is more "realistic". Strange... I seem to recall always establishing 360 degree security in the real world during infantry movements. For large defenses I recall 360 degree security with "defense in depth", or multiple layers of defense on the assumption that the enemy will infiltrate defenses at some point or another. This seems like a rather idiotic doctrine based on what is being outlined as the "realistic" approach to combat. It seems that real world training must be awfully flawed somewhere in insisting on 360 degree security all the time. You're right. Combined Arms is the answer. If people had been practicing it as a doctrine in game in the first place than the infantry FRU in its previous manifestation wouldn't have been a problem.
  13. It’s interesting that the only unit that can capture anything and the most prevalent unit in the war is a “narrow niche component”. At some point you are better off taking infantry out of the game and just allowing tanks to pull up next to CPs to capture. That actually comes off better than a few sporadic infantry trying to capture a town. It seems to me that one of the cited reasons the rats went down the road they did on the new TOE was feedback from players on lack of infantry play. The rats sought to force infantry play by brigade differentiations. Be careful what you wish for. There are other games that offer solid WWII infantry combat. All with better graphics, more realistic terrain, and more realistic weapon handling. Are you seriously suggesting it would be better for the people who are tired of a lack of infantry action in WWIIOL just leave the game and go elsewhere? Is that really what you want?
  14. That was an explanation of my original comment to what BMBM said. It was the same old get gooder comment that had been made here a thousand times when people take issue.
  15. Responding with get gooder only serves to anger people.