madeuce65

Registered Users
  • Content count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Green Tag

About madeuce65

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    7thast.com

Profile Information

  • Location
    Washington, D.C. USA
  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Army
  • Preferred Unit
    Rifleman
  1. Just plugged the upcoming STEAM release in 4 separate forum threads (Air, Armor, Tactical and Naval) at SimHQ. Already getting quite a few views. -MaDeuce65
  2. Um...Rats? Marketing Team? How is it that there is no mention of our upcoming Steam release at simhq.com? This is like our base. Not just sim newbies looking for the latest and greatest, but vets too...many of whom still enjoy playing older games like ours. Someone should contact the honchos at SimHQ and get them a press kit asap...they'll probably also do a review if asked.
  3. I think this "niche" option could work and bring in more subs too. Great idea.
  4. Agree with you on the Starter sub -- I could be wrong but it seems they took away some gear when they upped the price from $5 to $8 / mo. Starters should be getting more, not less.
  5. I realize I'm probably just adding to the chorus here...but PLEASE reconsider giving F2P players "a more WELL-ROUNDED taste" of the game by giving them limited access in ALL service branches -- not just INF -- before our big Steam debut. Personally, I love playing INF, but a lot of new F2P players (especially tank / air / warship simmers) will be turned off and will leave if they can't get access to basic (Tier 0) armor (maybe just 232, Panhard and DAC), airplanes or fairmiles. The 2-week premium trial is generous, but I don't think it's enough of a hook...and we're only going to get ONE shot at drastically increasing our player base once Steam launches. Do we want everyone to upgrade to premium accounts? Of course. But realistically, I think there are folks out there who will always be content to stay F2P. And just for increased fun and playability, I'd rather retain the free-loaders with a few more toys in order to have a consistently higher in-game pop (and larger battles) than slog through another campaign fighting the same ole 100-150 veteran subscribers in low-pop engagements. Let's allow this awesome MMO FPS to live up to its unique potential and TRULY make it MMO.
  6. I'm seeing more instances of the enemy pre-camping FBs once the EFB has been blown. Isn't it possible to randomly generate these locations on the map to encourage more friendly recon for INF and ACs and discourage pre-camping from the opposing side? If these locations can't be randomly generated, then perhaps more than one 'possible' location could be added in-game to actually make FBs hard to find. To my mind, an FB should be more mobile (like a FRU or FMS) and less like a fixed forward spawn point.
  7. I've actually been subscribed on a Starter Acct since November...don't know why I'm still listed here as F2P. I asked Lince to look into it...never heard back from him.
  8. "Or, in T2, the British vehicle could be the Churchill 3 inch gun carriage." Cool idea, but this never saw action either: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/a22d-churchill-gun-carrier/
  9. Marder III Ausf. H with the Kwk 75mm gun, correct -- but nevertheless mounted on the 38t chassis. Still relatively easy to modify from the in-game tank, no? Valentine AT - too bad it never saw action -- good to know. What about converting the M10 Wolverine to the British M10 Achilles? Not sure the 17-pounder is even modeled in the game though...that would have to be done from scratch, I guess. Lots of work creating ballistics, penetration values, etc. Or maybe converting the in-game Vickers Mk VI to a Mk V and adding a 2-pounder. Any evidence to suggest this variant ever saw combat? I like Muromachi's idea to introduce the SAu 40 for the French TD. Though with the shorter 75 mm APX mle. 1938, it would probably mirror the StuG IIIB more as an assault tank than a true TD. Not sure when the longer, tank-killing 75 mm AC SA44 gun was added. Since the SAu 40 was developed from the S-35 tank in-game, this would definitely make converting it to a TD easier. Here's what I don't get: if rules are rules, then why is CRS introducing a German HT with a mounted 40mm Bofors (instead of the 3,7mm Flak 36)? Completely ahistorical, to the best of my knowledge.
  10. Two TDS -- not three, you're right...technically, the IIIB is an assault tank that Wiki has lumped in with Tank Destroyers. Anyway, all the more reason to expand this vehicle category! Someday...hopefully sooner than later, if ever.
  11. At the risk of sounding repetitive (see NAVAL training request) ...it's been MONTHS since I posted a reply on this forum and still...no answer. @CHKICKER - Please tell me the point of having this AIR Training Request Sticky here AT ALL.
  12. Well, it's been MONTHS since I posted a reply on this forum and still...no answer. @CHKICKER - Please tell me the point of having this Naval Training Request Sticky here AT ALL.