nerco250

Registered Users
  • Content count

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Green Tag

About nerco250

  • Rank
    Commander - Das Heer
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    Madrid- Spain
  • Preferred Side
    Axis
  • Preferred Branch
    Army
  • Preferred Unit
    SMG

Recent Profile Visitors

552 profile views
  1. It is very clear. Just ask the majority of those who play with a tank if the HE model seems to be fixed. Or if the issue of the grenades seems corrected. Or if the new quantity and disparity of tanks in according to which brigades and side seems real or logical. I insist. This is a game. And it bothers me that the criterion of "that is not real" is used to change according to what things and keep others. In any case, I will not discuss it anymore. I know that CRS is working on fixing issues such as the damage model of HE, AP ... and I value the effort, but the biggest problem of the game right now is the shortage of players. And actions like this, referred to the lmg, I'm afraid it does not help to increase the number of players, if not the opposite.
  2. OK perfect. In reality it was like that, but this is a game. Let's see how and how much the lmg is used from now on. And if it favors more players online or less. In any case, the argument that "it is that in real life this did not work like this" is used at convenience. The rest of the automatic weapons, smgs and rifles, were fired on the run as usual? Was it normal for there to be more armor than infantry inside a city? ... I can understand that we want to eliminate the use of the lmg in small spaces, but that nobody tries to convince me that it is done for a "historical" reason. If we use that argument, we must redefine ALL the game
  3. Ok, I can understand the problem you are raising, but the solution that they have taken does not seem to be the right one. For the same reason, as some comrades have commented here, you should prevent shooting by running or walking with anything other than a gun. With the proposed modification, a lmg can not enter CAPTURE a cp if it is defended or ENTER to take in a bunker. FOR THESE ASSUMPTIONS it becomes a useless weapon
  4. If you limit the use of a weapon, you are reducing your power. If there were people who only play lmg, it could be the case that these people stop playing, or at least stop paying and go to a free account. If you had the option of spawning 10 tigers and changing it to 2, there might be people who are not interested in paying, since never or very few times, they can get a tiger. This is a fact. They are subscriptions that you lose. If, implementing this fact, you get more new subscribers, than people who leave because of this, you will have succeeded. If there are more people who leave the game for this reason than the people who return to the game because of this change, you have made a mistake. And I'm afraid it will be the second option that will happen You are talking about realism. It is unreal to shoot a lmg running and hit, as it is to shoot running a smg and hit. If you want to avoid this, expand the dispersion when you walk or run, but do not PREVENT using it in this way. If I am in a narrow corridor running with a lmg and shoot an enemy at 5 meters (this is what happens inside a cp) I am sure that I will hit some of my shots. Obviously, if I am in the open field and shoot an ei at 15 meters while I run there are many chances that it does not work. In summary, if you do not like to use a running lmg, increases the dispersion of the weapon, but do not prevent its use.
  5. In the end it all comes down to a lack of numbers in the game. The reasons are several; A high monthly fee, some outdated graphics, irregular operations with respect to ballistics (immortal ets no matter how hard they are hit), decompensation, according to some, between the material of one side or the other (both sides say the same thing) ... I am afraid that until this does not improve, we will not feel what we lived for years. I think this is more priority than introducing new material.
  6. I still have the feeling that there are too many tanks in the game. Imho
  7. I do not dislike the idea of mini campaigns, especially to encourage the fight in certain areas and cities where you hardly fight on a typical map. However, I think that awarding partial victories in campaigns with a limited time, would improve the game at specific moments, but what is more important, does not have any negative effect on what we have now. If we put a limit of 60 days (more than reasonable) and the allies begin to push from the beginning and conquer 80% of the towns on the 20th, little repercussion would have this new rule. The allies would end the map on day 30 or day 40 (except miracle of the opposite side). But if that push occurs on the 55th, that is, at that time the allies have 80% of the map, many axis can connect those last 5 days knowing that although it is very possible that they do not turn the map around, they can always deny a TOTAL victory to the Allied side, and even a partial one, if they hold those 5 days .. That is to say, at that moment the Axis would have something else to fight for, apart from waiting for a miracle that does not always happen. There are campaigns, without going any further the latter, that both sides are looking forward to ending. The die is cast; the loser side does not defend as it did at the beginning of the campaign, and the attacker is tired of taking town after town with little resistance. With a temporary limitation this could be corrected or mitigated
  8. I would like to know your opinion about introducing new partial victory conditions. See if it is possible and design those new conditions, if you consider it positive for the game. I explain: The last campaigns have lasted a lot. With the new system of garrisons and fewer "mobile" flags, I have the feeling that the campaigns are going to be even longer. This does not have to be bad, but we all know that when certain key cities fall into enemy hands, as a general rule, it is already known which side will end up winning the campaign; the losing side does not attack, and sometimes it is limited to defend from a window, trying to make casualties and importing very little if the enemy gets one or more cps. The idea would be to put a time limit to the campaign. I do not know which would be the optimum, if 30 days, 60 days or 120, but there would be a maximum date. If that day has come, the campaign is not over, according to the current rules, the campaign ends and we look if some of the new conditions of partial victory are met. What are these conditions? Perhaps the control of certain key cities, for example that the axis control St Omer, St Quentin and Cambrai, or the entire north coast from Calais to Hellevoetssluis or that the allies control Bitburg, Aachen and Well. Another option is to control, for example 90% of the aerodromes and / or ports, have control of at least one city in each river or 90% of the rivers, etc. Even if a 2: 1 ratio is reached in enemy deaths ... you can play with several variables, modify the above or ask that several circumstances be met What would be achieved with this? 1st- You know the end date of the campaign. You know that day ends and that you do not have to be in pain waiting for one side or the other to take the 5 or 6 cities that remain, knowing that the campaign is sentenced. 2nd- Promotes the fight until the last day. Maybe your side does not win this campaign, but it can prevent the enemy from getting a total victory (with the current victory conditions), even they get a partial victory. 3rd- If the campaign is very balanced, it provides new conditions for a partial victory, which means new movements, new strategies ... Also, depending on which cities you need to obtain a partial victory, we can see battles in areas that are not currently fought . I'm thinking of the zeelands, on the northern coast of France (Calais-Gravelines-dunkerque)
  9. No, this campaign has not been won or will be won (whichever is the winner), by 90% of softcap. It is simply a lie. There have been great battles, and only the last two days there have been some softcaps, CONSEQUENCE of them previous battles.And it is normal that these softcaps are given.Historically they were also given.One of the causes of these last Sc has been the NON-WITHDRAWAL of the allies of the area of the factories, which may be debatable, but of course understandable. Another reason has been the withdrawal of allied flags (navy and air flags) of cities to prevent the advance of the axis. Disputed but legal and again understandable. On Friday, in Julich, a city that placed the axis to 1 town to pocket a division, no ally came out to defend it. And there was flag. And it was not tz3.All the allies fighting in Liege, which was also important. By this I mean that it is not necessary that there are no flags in a city for one or another side does not defend how the situation requires it. In any case, the 1.36 will come soon and there will no longer be this flag system, so these discussions will end. I think softcap are necessary. We can not have a big fight in each town of the map
  10. Thank you very much, gentlemen. A pleasure to fight every day at your side
  11. Gj pym. Well deserved
  12. Well deserved. Congrats
  13. we lost chat when spawn was allies. A lot of people reset their computer and could not re-enter. No warnings about captured cps
  14. I totally agree
  15. Grande, máquina.