Free Play Account
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About pbveteran

  • Rank
    Free Play Account
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Preferred Side
  • Preferred Branch
  • Preferred Unit
    Panzer 4

Recent Profile Visitors

932 profile views
  1. +1 Exactly people who say otherwise have no idea of the history of the game.. HC has been in game since 2005? only when population fells did it became a problem. Even on low populations there are always players playing the game why not give them an opportunity to command and move smaller brigades?
  2. You argument has no value, the concept was applied in Heroes and Generals to great success one of the few reasons I used to play it. Because these brigades would be of small size and single handily would have very few impact in a battle, a combine effort would be necessary, further more applying rank restrictions or last campaign side checks would reduce any anti-game movements further more the current GMs would be more than enough to fix these small deviations or the current HC could force to reassign or relieve command of a player of one of these smaller brigades/battalions.
  3. What we need is that every player when attained x Rank and X time on the campaign, could request one brigade to command on the map. No need to apply and have a human accept it or not by adding more brigades and reducing the supply for each, there would always be movement and something to move on the map while simultaneous allowing to loose a few of them since the supply would be smaller.
  4. As a tanker I disagree that would be too OP, fast vehicle with low audio and to kill you had to put a shot inside that small hole on that bunker or PPO. If you want that, you must make the tank more survivable, like repairs and replenish crew. With ATG Spawning from PPO's tanking has become much more frustrating.
  5. Paratroopers were elite troops, were better equipped and had to carry much of their supply for days. Makes sense that they would advance and capture objectives faster, not only that but the fact they mostly strike at rear targets, behind the frontlines. By your thinking we should be able to capture towns behind the front lines with paratroopers.. I don't think this would make great gameplay although wouldn't mind testing but for the sake of gameplay, Paras are pretty much worthless they are only effective on long standing AO without EWS and they still have many negative variables. Weren't Paras in market garden able to capture a town faster than axis and hold a bridge and many German Losses.. Same goes for FJ operation on Belgium blowing massive forts. @XOOM I think the game needs a Para update there are many small things like this, having the transport plane resupply(which would make FB busts possible by landing the JU), Para Engineers and other small features, would diversy the use of paratroopers and their applications. Thumbs up for, the removal of transport plane tags!
  6. The same should applied to the community achievements.. they should stack on your profile after each campaign. Not doing so makes times kinda worthless or meaningless after each campaign end.
  7. Maybe make it more resistant to bombs and Limit the number of ATGs to 1 that can spawn. Other than that it can't really be improved more than what has already been done, if you don't like the rear open door go engineer and add a PPO. The concept can still be very frustating because of truck audio, I wish we had a hybrid FMS that could be placed by infantry with limit supply and no ATG and to add more supply and level the FMS you would bring a truck and despawn near it.
  8. 102 Permanent Bans... What does warrant a Permanent Ban... And how many of those perma bans are cheaters or people who exploit bugs?
  9. @XOOM Would like to know it too.. I don't think he would take 3D models from other games with risking to have copyright issues.
  10. Being Axis and having just taken 3 Towns in Row with a 5-15 SD, I think it's working ok. More teamwork and more courageous panzers to lock cps are the key..
  11. I think this adds too many problems if you think about it... - if you don't add AI, planes will be easy to camp - if these are place too close to a battle this will make the Af easily camped - the strategic location and value of AF will be significantly reduced - adding strips and ai in not fixed locations, would probably not be easy to implement and prone to generate bugs.. Finally this doesn't add much to the game, interdicting rpd won't happen since the key is climbing altitude and the current af setup covers well the map. In the end this will make air quake which mainly happens against axis worst, the little breath that you got when bombers are rtbing would not happen. So big thumbs down from me..
  12. Please quote me when I ask for a repair button... xD (pretending that I ask for features I didn't and painting my ideas in different light is very disrespectful) Man can you read English??? I'm not against losing your track, I'm against having your track damage by a small caliber gun and despite being able to move very slowly with your track which is visually fine to you and others, the result gameplay wise is the same has having lost your entire track...? My point is why have these two systems that are basically the same..., one you understand clearly and the other that is counter intuitive... If in both situations you are basically detrack why not have tracks detracked by smaller caliber guns then having this middle point... Again you don't know what Im saying when I said I had similar bugs.. (bugs is just an unwanted or unplanned feature) is to make try to understand in code when you switch crew, a value is kept rather then being reset, this is what it all comes down to. Convergence and Keymapping is a simply read text. (NO WRONG) you can interact or modified the key-mapping because it is saved or read from that file.. but I'm not talking about this in this sense but how it is implemented on the client and game code(the thing that does stuff with that file), the keypoint being that the game already differentiates vehicles and is able to assign different inputs to them, so adding a true or false value to reset or kept the last input by unit seems extremely easy to me, since the harder part... the differentiation is already implemented and used. What hell are you talking about?.. Currently ingame to take an ATG to a contested zone I need a truck to tow it, if that trucks gets destroyed but I survived, I can then call for another player to pick me up and tow me back... Why do you doubt the enemy would not be fine by this, he took out one truck but wasn't able to kill me and prevent another truck to pick me up, it's his fault not mine.. This is actually one of the best feature the game has.. being the lone survivor, asking for someone to save you while the enemy is hunting you.. Why would you assume me to be unhappy with more freedom and skill... with a feature that would those plus more content generation for me and for the enemy and this would be a negative...? Assumptions only show how lacking you are in argument department... Maybe I should have used the word freedom rather than bypass.. to make it clearer to you that I was referring to freedom of choice, a player should have. Rest of what you wrote are double standards, stuff I didn't mention or support, lack of understanding game design and mechanics, even understanding this game at all... which again I have to admit there are features that are way too realistic and do not make sense to implement ingame, others that are too arcade to be placed together with this too realistic features. By the way I reply everything in a thread to thread or post to post basis, I really don't even look at names but I will remember you named for the wrong reasons , everything I write or post I try to see if it fits the game, adds something of value and it's not an unrealistic implementation considering CRS resources.. Replying just to reply and not really seeing the big picture and framing things in the greater context only makes you look bad.
  13. Again you have double standards and are being hypocritical, you don't have an auto ammo counter in WW2 for every gun or a green bar when you are tired LMAO... Your crew 1 has been hit xD, An enemy tower that you can't kill the enemy soldier by shooting on the head or where he ignores you if you are not directly infront of him... Can't you admit you being a little pathetic with aurgmenting realistic features in game that isn't a full realistic representation of WW2 and are option to bypass? Yea i am pretty sure every player shooting some other thing would really find their day unfun when the thing they are trying to stop presses the bypass button. IDDQD What do you have against pressing a button? You want a hardware lever in your pc to turn right or left in tank, a dedicated hardware gunsight to adjust your gun and do you want to go prone in front of your PC so you can go prone ingame? You are playing with a keyboard you interact with the game by pressing buttons Have you ever played one of the most basic games rock, paper, scissors everything has a counter or a possible solution, having dead ends as in decisions(like you reach a door it's locked you loose the game...)this is something to be avoided. Have you ever played any game besides this one.. repair mechanisc or even other solution like towing tanks are common practices even in realistic game like Steel fury..
  14. @chaoswzkd If you only looked at EWS and not about having more targets to bombers. I would even simplify it even more and make it easier to implement just by adding more delays or even no EWS the further you are from a side owned city.. Kinda modeling some fog of war at least for air.