Registered Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by GrAnit

  1. Can you tell which couple of issues are in the plan to fix?
  2. Any update on the status of implementing the inf fix for HE?
  3. WTFIJGKBCRSNMSIAGTRQ = What the frack?, I just got killed by something because CRS nerfed my side. I am going to rage quit!
  4. The Sherman was a war winner from a strategic POV, but tactically is was poor to mediocre, and the tankers paid the price.
  5. When in doubt, try a side shot to the lower back hull. This is usually a weak spot in most tanks and will most likely destroy the engine or more. If that shot is not available, go the 90 deg shot to the side of the hull or the driver slit. The last desperate move is to aim for the main gun, but it is a low percentage shot, especially on smaller tanks. Also, remember that tanks used are best in ambush or in an overpower situation. He who shoots first usually wins. And being hull down behind a berm or wall helps a bunch.
  6. Well, it is your game and business, but I was surprised and a bit disappointed logging in the next day to see that routed brigades were back in action so quickly after the amount of work and length of time it took to complete that encirclement. It was an once in 150+ campaign maneuver! I really think that took the steam out the axis players. At that point, IMHO, an axis route of the allies and starting a new campaign would have been better than starting another long, slow grind. Battling is fun, but here is an element of a campaign that makes the battles fun because they mean something overall. Otherwise endless battles just take on the feel of shoebox shooter game.
  7. I am no expert on the rules, but if a routed brigade is brought to full strength faster than resupplying a depleted brigade, then something is really broken. That needs to be fixed before worrying about changing placements and movement from training. IMHO routed brigades should take twice as long as depleted brigades to get back to full strength.
  8. “From February 1943, the appearance of German armored fighting vehicles began to change dramatically as the overall panzer gray paint scheme was superseded by a dark yellow base color. New and rebuild vehicles left the factory in this plain base color, but were issued to the units with tins of drab olive green and red brown paints. These were fuel and water soluble paints in paste form which were supplied in 2 kg and 20 kg tins together with spray guns. It was recommended that the paints and should be diluted with fuel and sprayed over the dark yellow in disruptive camouflage patterns. No official camouflage patterns were issued as it was intended that unit commander‘s would devise their own to suit the local train. Wilst this was excellent in theory, the reality was often far less satisfactory. Crews tended to ditch the spraygun and sometimes the paint to make room for stowing more essential items. It was also common for water to be used as a paint thinner instead of fuel, which was often in short supply. These factors resulted in wild variations in the appearance of vehicles. Some might simply be daubed thickly with mud to cover the dark yellow, wilst others had the undiluted paint smeared on with brushes and rags, producing very dark disruptive patterns. In contrast, some crews over did the thinning, leading to a very pale finish was had little practical value. Increasingly affective allied air attacks during 1943 and 1944 lead to unit commanders enforcing higher standards of camouflage painting, although pattern still very greatly from vehicle to vehicle. From D-Day onwards, incessant fighter bomber strikes and virtually anything that moves in daylight prompted crews to festoon their vehicles with freshly cut foliage in additional camouflage.” From ‘ First SS Panzer Corps at Villers-Bocage 13 June 1944’ by David Porter.
  9. I do agree the render distance needs to be increased. It was an issue prior to the latest update. Needs to be >1.2 km from the air to the ground, IMHO.
  10. 1944: the RAF’s and USAF’s Story According to the RAF, the Hawker Typhoon was the most effective ground attack and tank killing aircraft in the world in 1944, which may have been true. No fewer than 26 RAF Squadrons were equipped with Typhoons by mid 1944. These aircraft operated round the clock during the Normandy campaign operating in ‘cab rank’ formations, literately flying above the target area in circles, waiting their turn to attack. Official RAF and USAF records claim the destruction of thousands of AFVs in Normandy. There are many examples such as: During Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs (Rocket Projectiles).(2) During the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 140 and 112 tanks, respectively.(3) On a single day in August 1944, the RAF Typhoon pilots claimed no less than 135 tanks as destroyed.(4) So what really happened? Unfortunately for air force pilots, there is a small unit usually entitled Research and Analysis which enters a combat area once it is secured. This is and was common in most armies, and the British Army was no different. The job of The Office of Research and Analysis was to look at the results of the tactics and weapons employed during the battle in order to determine their effectiveness (with the objective of improving future tactics and weapons). They found that the air force’s claims did not match the reality at all. In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed).(5) Even worse, only 3 out of 87 APC examined could be attributed to air lunched RPs. The story at Mortain was even worse. It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack.(6) This is again around 4% of those claimed. When the results of the various Normandy operations are compiled, it turns out that no more than 100 German tanks were lost in the entire campaign from hits by aircraft launched ordnance.(7) Thus on a single day in August 1944 the RAF claimed 35% more tanks destroyed than the total number of German tanks lost directly to air attack in the entire campaign! Considering the Germans lost around 1 500 tanks, tank destroyers and assault guns in the Normandy campaign, less than 7% were lost directly to air attack.(8) The greatest contributor to the great myth regarding the ability of WWII aircraft to kill tanks was, and still is, directly the result of the pilot’s massively exaggerated kill claims. The Hawker Typhoon with its cannon and up to eight rockets was (and still is in much literature) hailed as the best weapon to stop the German Tiger I tank, and has been credited with destroying dozens of these tanks in the Normandy campaign. According to the most current definitive work only 13 Tiger tanks were destroyed by direct air attack in the entire campaign.(9) Of these, seven Tigers were lost on 18th July 1944 to massive carpet bombing by high altitude heavy bombers, preceding Operation Goodwood. Thus at most only six Tigers were actually destroyed by fighter bombers in the entire campaign. It turns out the best Tiger stopper was easily the British Army’s 17pdr AT gun, with the Typhoon well down on the list.
  11. I like the arming timers a lot! However, a 2.5 sec delay is only about 31 meters or so (assuming I got the math right) from the target, which is still pretty close. I would suggest increasing this to 4.5 sec as that equates to about 100 meters of travel before arming. Pilots could still suicide, but they would have to aim a a bit too. 31m is almost on top of the target.
  12. You know, to put this in perspective: - It's a 1 in a 150+ occurrence. - Lots of things needed to fall the right way for it to happen. - Variability makes the game fun in the long run, predicability does not. - 'New' people don't remember 'old' mistakes - nothing like experience. - if the axis cutoff hadn't worked, it would have been a major failure and the the axis would be gnashing their teeth and the allies would be rejoicing. - I am sure the Rats will make some changes as needed. So, it was fun, there were some epic battles, and it will be campaign for the history books. What more can you really ask for? Now, get your big boy pants on and go kill each other!!
  13. M2A4 is the closest thing to replace the Vickers for the US, and that is a bit of a stretch, because all US active M2A4's in WWII went to the Marines in the pacific. I will take a jeep with a 50 cal mount.
  14. With a lot of content? I hope so!
  15. Content rich Friday updates are pretty key to this community. Especially with several fixes for game issues in the works. Iy would be good to get an update on those, at least.
  16. Seems to me that a few rounds of HE should put a CP in the damaged state and killed anyone inside. They should be much more effective that satchels in destroying structures due to physics. Seems to me that a few rounds of HE should put a CP in the damaged state and killed anyone inside. They should be much more effective that satchels in destroying structures due to physics.
  17. I am glad you think not paying to play and having a good kit is 'fair'. To whom? lol
  18. 1) I would like the kit of each nation filled out more fully - every country should have their own gear. No more allied Ju52s, etc... 2) Also, I would like to see a more descriptive VDM implemented. ZeeBee's second item above is part of it, along ATG and AAA VDM. 3a) Clean up vehicle performance when in a damaged state. Planes shouldn't fly with one wing removes, tanks shouldn't have rock uncontrollably some damage modes, engines and transmissions should not be uncontrollably on. 3b) Clean up vehicle performance in undamaged state. Need a a/c structural damage based on overloading, trucks shouldn't coast a kilometer after shutting the engine off, dead infantry shouldn't skate across the landscape. 3c) More realistic terrain via UE4 or whatever. 3a-c falls under the category of more realism. And lastly, and most importantly by far, more players!
  19. Thank you, Rats, for a fun time since 2004!!!
  20. Well, I think part of the beauty in this game is long range fire. I routinely fire at targets over one km away with tanks, atg's and naval units. So if range is going to be limited to a km or less, that will take away a significant aspect of the game.
  21. No; you can still wait in and defend the cp/bunker even if there is a warning given to other players when enemies enter. It's not one or the other; it's both. This would be a good system to stop ninja caps and would preserve the action for those who like to defend.
  22. With this proposed scheme you can still do this.
  23. Any update on this? Will there be a fix in-game soon?
  24. That’s a non sequitor. I said nothing about hc, and why should there be an element of realism in moving troops?
  25. I disagree with the idea that having armor show up right away is not historically accurate because: 1. It’s motorized and so likely to get there more quickly than other units. 2. It is a key element of a strong (I.e. combined element) force. What commander would forward deploy the weakest units first in piecemeal fashion if there was a choice? Simply not realistic.