Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


krazydog last won the day on June 20 2017

krazydog had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

262 Salty

About krazydog

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    River Boat
  1. Does this mean Axis will get V-1 and V-2 rockets to bomb English factories?
  2. I saw it happen 4 times yesterday. One time it was an axis invisible MS, and three times it was a allied invisible MS. It happened both to the new trench MS, and to the old FMS because we saw ATGs spawning out of an invisible MS one time. Some of these invisible MSs were located on perfectly flat and open terrain. Placing satchel charges on the invisible MS spot didn’t seem to work either like it does with invisible depots. Also, it is my understanding that one time a GM went on the other side to remove a hidden MS by joining the mission and deleting the hidden MS from the map, but the hidden MS didn’t disappear from the game world, and it was only possible to remove the hidden MS by ending the mission completely.
  3. Well axis have wanted an accurate DB-7 for over a decade now. (Just an example). Nothing has been done about it for over a decade. Why should the Stg44 jump to the top of the fix list? Most Avis players have not even touched the Stg44 weapon yet because its never in supply. - (There are only 4 or so Stg44 in garrison supply). This should not be a P1 fix in my opinion - especially after fg42 changes that just occured. cheers!
  4. Noted. I will PM you next time I notice this. You are right: the main thing is to improve with experience! cheers!
  5. Also, I should say that I respect your knowledge on hand-held firing arms etc.. And I really did not challenge you on anything technical you said but... I think I made a couple of general points that are relevant to this game, if you review my above posts I made these comments: - Due to the very Limited supply of Stg44 in brigades (4 units!’?), and the fact that the are usually unavailable after the first 10-15 minutes of a battle, I don’t feel they are impacting the overall tactical/strategic situation of the game. - if we are going to make a historical gameplay argument, then I think there are a lot of other equipment in game that has been in game a lot longer and needs an audit first -There have been a couple of recent audits that have really affected the axis side more than the allied side: the LMG audit and the Fg42 relocation back to Para only units. And I think the Axis side will complain if another nerf-audit happens right now. I understand your intention was good to analyze the historical capabilities of the Stg44, but maybe a private message to the developers would make more sense, because I know where this thread will go now: many allied players will have a lot of bad single encounters with the Stg44 in the next few days and they will scream for a nerf here - even though the thread you started was very logical (you know this to be true). I just decided that I am tired of all these nerfs back-to-back of axis equipment threads, and it was time for me to chime in here. I held back my thoughts about the Fg42 thread, but another thread right now about axis equipment changes is too much - too soon for me. And honestly I feel I needed to say something here about that no matter how good the Stg44 is. Cheers!
  6. This is good Xoom. But I hope you guys are able to avoid double counting in game and on social media. Also please make sure that Zebbee does not do another one of those too-narrowly worded question surveys which lead to biased results. For example a survey question like: “what infantry weapon would you like to see audited first?” would lead to inaccurate results. I personally think its long been time to have an audit of the DB-7 for historical accuracy. How would I answer a survey question like that? And if there is only just an “Other” option to fill in a DB-7 then the results wont reflect the true thinking of players, because many people will not think outside the A - B - C questions box. Cheers!
  7. Just one thing about these Zebbee polls: The polls should be on the login screen in game, and not on these forums. The vocal allied players outnumber the vocal axis players in these forums by about 3-1. Believe me I know - I have been an Axis voice on these forums since about 2007 lol! So I consider poll results more credible, and more representative of the actual player base, if the polls are done in-game on the log-in screen, and not on these forums. Cheers!
  8. This! Axis side is getting a little tired of every nice piece of equipment we have getting nerfed lately. The allies have plenty of nice stuff too which also need audits.
  9. Well if we are just talking about making weapon systems’ behavior historical accurate, then maybe we should audit the DB-7 first, and stop it from doing vertical loops with full bomb loads which is also not historically accurate? The DB-7 has been in game for more than a decade (almost two decades) - much longer than the Stg44, and the DB-7 still has not been fixed. The Axis have been complaining about its flight behavior for probably the same amount of time,. So maybe the DB7 should get some audit love before we audit a new toy that is in game less than one week ? cheers!
  10. Come on guys... lets not start another one of these “please nerf another weapon threads.” We just finished one of these threads last month. The Stg44 is a new toy. Let people play with it a little bit. Yes its a nice weapon, but if I remember correctly there are only about four Stg44 in garrison supply. They get used up really fast. The Stg44 is not a game changer with such a limited supply available. Cheers!
  11. I realized today that there are more reasons why we need to keep the old waypoint system still functioning alongside the new system: I make all kinds of private waypoint marks on the map when I am driving a vehicle. As a mission leader, before i setup my MS, I often use private waypoint marks on the map to judge max ews range from towns, hill location etc... while i drive around towns. These are temporary marks for me. I also use them to mark driving paths in large town while I am tanking. I don’t want to be sharing these private marks with everyone else on the target. And I dont think other people want all that marking clutter either We need a way to have an option to set PRIVATE mission marks on the map and not share them on the HUD or the maps of people on other missions who are on the same target. It would be very inconvenient if we are forced to constantly keep toggling the HUD options in the preferences screen in order to achieve this. A better way to program a solution is with different mouse clicks on the map In game - like I mentioned above in the first post of this thread with ‘right-click’ or ‘shift+right-click” marking option - or something similar to that. Cheers!
  12. Sometimes I do not want to share my waypoints with all the other missions on the same target. For example, when I create new missions the first thing I always do is mark all the capturable points in a town on the map as R1, R2 etc... so I can locate them quickly. In large towns this can be around 20 waypoints. I don’t think everyone else on the same target wants to see all those waypoints on their HUDs too! I meed a way to make marks on the map that do not share with other missions. Or to toggle off the waypoint sharing as an option. Can CRS please do something about this please? Suggestion for a solution: Maybe a mouse RIGHT-CLICK on the map to have a mark shared with everybody across all missions like it is now. And a SHIFT-RIGHT-CLICK on the map to make marks the old way : to only be seen on the map and by people who are only on your mission.
  13. I will turn them off - (spoils in-game immersion for me). I prefer to use map waypoints. PS - its going to be a lot of game-world clutter if everyone sharing same target (as opposed to sharing the same mission only) can see HUD waypoints) - contact marks are enough info to share across missions on same target I think. Hopefully the Hud waypoints will help new players at least. But there may be a negative side-effect too - new players will probably look at the map even less and they won’t see the map waypoints made by their mission leaders (like me). Also there might be other confusion too: I may tell people on my mission to cap “R1” -rteferring to my map waypoint, but people may be seeing a different HUD “R1” from another mission with same target and go to wrong location. CRS should think hard about the best way to introduce these new HUD waypoints before they go live. - Especially how map waypoints and HUD waypoints interact with each other. I just pay to play the game. So unless new gameplay changes are really well thought out in advance, I personally am not really interested in being a “beta-tester” for these HUD waypoints during a live campaign. I hope the new HUD waypoints work out, but just please think it through well first - just trying to point out here some of the potential negative conflicts that can hapoen with these things if you guys rush in the implementation. cheers!
  14. I certainly do not want to pay for a “Red vs Blue” game. That would be so boring! I am willing to accept some deviations from “historical accuracy” due to the need to balance gameplay. But a true 100 pct “Red vs Blue” game would not be fun to play at all in my opinion. cheers!
  15. I had trouble logging in game over the past couple days to see what has been going on with this due to all the server crashes and log in issues with the 64 bit patch. But today I logged in for a few hours and the situation was indeed better, maybe partly due to the post WBS population levels, but Axis factories were also only 50pct-ish damage instead of 90pct-ish damage before, and also Axis had taken some towns back which allows some front line supply refills. So its probably due to the combination of the above. However, I am still pretty sure there are some issues with the current RDP system - especially when the unbalance becomes extreme. Also there are issues with RDP gameplay - (guarding RDP factories is worse than guarding FBs in my opinion - very boring gameplay - and this is a big part of the problem). My thoughts on RDP system has evolved a lot since I started this thread. And I plan to startup a new RDP 2 thread in the near future with a more comprehensive thoughtfull discussion on this topic, but I am waiting a little more before I do that to see if any other folks have some comments on this topic. Cheers! Krazydog