Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


stankyus last won the day on November 3

stankyus had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

602 Hero

About stankyus

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/25/1971
  1. Flat ground.. IIRC turnhout. Don't think the round drops enough to punch though. It's strange, I saw tonight a ch7 take serious punishment from a tiger under... my 500m and did not die, so its possible the rounds are getting through the top armor. That being said a squadie took a stugG hit from 400 off angle frontally and exploded.. that was canukplf. It should not penetrate or even spall at that range to set off the ammo like it did. My impression is that the issue is still present.
  2. The Churchill 7 still dying to stugGs at 1k - 1.2/4 k frontally . I know Scotsman found 2 issues with the Churchill tanks that had them dying to frontal hits they shouldn't. The stugG shouldn't kill the ch7 frontally unless possibly 100m, the tiger 500 meters. Potentially that is. That being said I watch a tiger tank out two ch7s just Sunday at 1600-1800m.. as in wtf explode them. I assume the issue fix is not present in the game yet?
  3. I hear what you are saying, I can't argue to much. However I do have some perspective disagreements. The 1940 US shooter often had years of shooting prior to entering the service. My grandfathers, from two different social economic backgrounds both could drop deer at 300-400 yards by the age of 14 and 16 years of age. My pops dad (working poor) ranked 14th out of his his company (?) basic training... but got medically removed and spent the rest of the war building planes with Boeing. My mothers father (upper middle class) joined the navy in intelligence and latter the CIA, however his shooting skills were average. 100% of his class were vets. See, he could pop deer at 400 yards at 16. Both were shooters by today's standards but average during his day. My aunts father was a real shooter, lost his thumb in combat but even with out his thumb, I personally watched him nail 6 out of 8 two litter soda bottles at 100 yards in about 15 seconds with a ww2 era m1 he bought in 1949 through a government WPA (?) program and had till his death in 1992. He had a 30 cal carbine also, my cuz now has it. He would also like to point out that the Lee Enfield mk 4 was exceptional with accuracy and the M1D was still the marine sniper riffle into the mid to late 60s- ww2 designs.
  4. I think what pissed ppl off like me and I had a personal discussion with Xoom about this. 1. The Turret rotation speed was done when: a. Parity with the S76 and parity of the M10 and StugG. b. Correcting the M10 sites from 5x to 3x. AT the very least it was very poor bedside manner. Xoom expressed that there where 3 reasons for upping the turret rotation speed. 1. Arbituary decision. 2. To deal with the Rpat and Sapper 3. More in line with parity but they overlap.. The Tiger was NOT as effective as it was historically... (see arbitruary reasoning) The allies most likely would not have cared so much about the M10 or rotation speed increase IF we had gotten something that positively effected our side. That would have been another S76 and more M10s to offset the negative effects of lopsiding the balance issue. It has FURTHER been aggravated because the parity issue has been around for over a year and when discussing the entrance of the Firefly that THEY would be extremely limited as if to adhere to a historical rarity to be played out with its entrance into the game. Appearances are EVERYTHING in marketing, and this game has always appeared to put an enfaces on not red vrs blue but a unique balancing of equipment. We have strayed so far from that mandate and by several of the Staff selling the idea of putting a strict historical aspect to equipment as to date entrances seems to paint the future of even more balance issues.Like it or not the only way to overcome those issues lay in the realm of military disapline and numerical superiority plus some of the historical advantages that are just not present in the game to offset equipment balance issues. This games balance is rather simple. Its equipment and population, all efforts to keep ppl logged in on both sides and a true equipment balance (key to numbers) is where the time and attention to detail should take priority. All the other BS does not serve the betterment of the communities opinion about the game.
  5. You get it.. I find the k98 superior in lateral tracking over the allied weapons. I have not used the Carcano in game so I cannot speak to it, but if its worse than the M1909.. I feel sorry for the Italian riflemen.
  6. No. I don't want a guy who is pissed he cannot switch sides and decides to become just a target or logs out because he cant help out the underpopped side..
  7. Not enough ppl to come remotely close to doing this and not enough things to make up for the weakness with strengths. IE Artillery and heavy bombers, numerical superiority, industrial superiority etc.. Even if we had 50 Sherman 75s for every 10 P4Gs and 1 Tiger, if you don't have the ppl to man those Shermans - its futility. IF you do, its a route. Currently if we go to a historical tier based system in past T1.. the game goes heavily lopsided till mid to late 44 in favor of the Axis.. SEE the need for population, the allies would have to overpopulate the Axis during those tiers and for as long as I can remember the Axis have always had a larger player bench to pull from. From a gamers perspective, which is not a military mandate of order.. ppl don't play when equipment balance issues are crap.
  8. I have played both sides for years.. While I would agree that the majority of the infantry game should have equal numbers with the exception of the BEF and French LMGs.. I disagree with you about the assertion of the allied riffle being superior to the k98. I actually prefer the k98 and mas36 over the M1903 and Enfield by and large. I find the US riffle at the bottom of the barrel, where as the ROF of the Enfield makes up for its difficulty. The German PB ATR actually has more penetration than the Boys, and a larger capacity than the boys, no reload issues. Its the armor thickness they face that makes the PB more difficult beyond T0. The reason why I did not put the ATG in the mix its a numbers game balance already for the most part, and while they can be a force multiplier their lack of mobility and vulnerability negates most the force multiplier issue. I would also put the semi auto riffles in the mix - over looked that. When the BEF did not have semi autos it was a slaughter house playing BEF even with the upped ROF for the Enfield. So I would agree with that. The SMGs - I find them all very similar overall with some better in other areas than others. MP40 and Sten are prob the best all around SMGs. I find the MP34 very similar to the Mas38.. decent CQB. not so good at longer ranges. Thompson is a CQB weapon period and good at it. M3 not a good CQB, but nice for longer ranges, The Italian SMG is its equal in longer range engagement, buts ROF makes it a pretty decent CQB weapon. That's the way I find them from experience which is part fact - but part anecdotal therefore its opinion. However when the small arms audit happens.. The Thompson is going to be out ranged by all the other SMGs - 50m effective.. but the MP40, Sten, M3 and Italian SMGs will all have very similar medium range accuracy - 100m effective and the king of the SMG will in fact be the MP34. 200m effective. That is if what I have read about them is correct and not group think reposting of the same information on them on the internet. My point being is simply. No small arms audit - infantry smg balance issues are mute ( I personally don't see one) - thus moving them around now just means they get moved again. RGs do not create a balance issue. I do not miss the RG in the US kit at all. Certainly it would be cool to get the RG but its not hurting us. Its a very rare thing to say - "damn, I could use a RG about now" However its no where near as important as getting the M1919 in play. I always am saying I could use the M1919 about now. To me the most important equipment issues are the HE damage consistent fix and small arms audit. ALL the BS we currently whine about quite a bit - are couched in those TWO items. Planes absorbing too much punishment, cant hit the broad side of a barn, have to have a near direct hit with an 88 to kill infantry, bombs cant kill tanks or sink DDs, StuH is a POS, powder puff bombs, dropping too low with out damaging the plane, this SMG is wildly inaccurate, Axis grenadier shooting at his feet and killing ei and living, my grenade wont kill EI unless they are standing next to it.. etc. I have no idea why this is not a top priority when Scotsman stated all that data was done, fixed and handed over to CRS to add it in months before he left the CRS team and game. ONLY then can we really move on and progress in a positive direction.. or new AFVs like the CS tanks and STuH are just modelling time and money drain. The best thing the CS tanks have are the MGs and smoke. The only CS tank we have with AT capability is the CH5 and they forgot to add in the ability to range it making it just a MG bunker and HE depot spammer. The StuH has the best HE in the game from a AFV... yet its worthless until the fix. I think it has 10 AP or mb 5 cant remember but that is not what the AFV is intended for.. its a SPG, not a TD.
  9. Agree, I like the mas38.. however just to pick nits, its not 2 kinds.. its 3 until the Italian forces are flushed out and given their own divisions. Likewise as per the RGs, as Mos has pointed out, ATM they are all pretty much worthless unless you are standing. I still get kills and killed by them from time to time post HE audit. TBH I don't see a point in moving them to perspective tiers period. Not till HEAT Rgs are back in play to where IMHO should be limited toward tier advancement. As far as the French RG.. go back and read Jwilly's post on them. The point being the scenario you brought up about using old ww1 RGs for the Germans is exactly what happened to the French. IMHO up until when the SMG audit is functioning as per accuracy, they are all very inaccurate and the SMGs like the MP40 and Mas38 have way to much kick, and all have way too much muzzle flash.. thus determining balance is rather mute because they are all inaccurate.. some more than others. TBH, balance issues tend to be focused around force multipliers, not bolt action, or smgs.. and ATM RGs. They are Tanks and MGs (prob planes too but I don't fly enough to comment). Things that can produce mass casualty with greater ease. We are majoring on the minors with the infantry damage consistent that has borked HE which is a much more concerning issue that when fixed will upset what we have now.
  10. Its belting, not hits. The Minen round is the only round with equivalent joule output to the HS404, I think the belting is 3:1 AP, HE, HE, Minen. The HE having less than half the joule output of the HS404 which is all HE belting. So, in reality it was just doing what it was supposed to do. Its kinda like comparing the 30mm to the 20mm and scratching your head why it takes more 20mm to take out a plane.
  11. The irony.. M3 could have been answered as a "perhaps balance". The SMGs still need a lot of work anyhow and until they get the work necessary moving the SMGs around Axis grenadier - do you see the irony how the French RG was handled? That being said, the US does not have a RG.. I don't think NOT having an RG yet has upset balance.. no where near not having the M1919.. and likewise in perspective, if the Axis did not have the MG34 it would be much more of an issue toward balance than not having a RG.
  12. LOL and by the powers of Greyskull.. awe crap its Mod of the forums. Your powers are fruitless.
  13. I never insulted you, I just said you had a set up a either/or logic fallacy. How is that an insult? Anyway, look.. you got your point across, got the last word and now you potentially are gonna get this thread locked. You win if it make you feel better. I also have a PM box which after the first locked thread and the one thread you started and posted this same line that got deleted soon after might have clued you in that the PM is where you should have taken your response to me.