delems

Why 1944 SMG in tier 0?

239 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, jwilly said:

Dunkerque never happens in-game in T0

LOL yes it does.
Sometimes :) 
Actually early in 141 we held the line barely, while adam1168 evacuated the brigades out of dun, got them out just in time as the axis blew through the last of our defenses.

1 hour ago, delems said:

Why do the allies need more ATGs?  Their tier 0 ATG already kills every tiered panzer, from a depot no less?  I don't get the need?
 

Hush, dont be salty.
Its not my fault you parked the tiger 60m away

You want your pak43 LG40, pak44, H M1 and other juicy goodies right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, merlin51 said:

But we would also be talking about only seeing like 2 tigers, not 6 or 8.
I mean, we can fight a couple tigers right?
Even DM79 aint that good?

 

And there are goodies that can still come, its not like ok this is T2 for ever and ever amen, no more than T0 or T1 is final finished answer.
There is the M3 grant, and lee, which would be a cool unit to tank about in for example (least i think so).
Scotsman has talked about variants like some of the CS tanks, and smoke an HE shells.
Some could be done relatively fast others need time because they are totally new things.
In the meantime we could fix up the tiers and fix the balance?

You are still not getting it Merlin - You are still advocating that the Allies go back to fighting tigers with M10s.. while I could put up with it for T-2 with the Axis having Tigers avail in HQ supply only so they have to bring up the HQ or drive them up.. I could deal with a Tier that has just Tigers in it...  If T-3 just adds more M10s and Tigers WHY HAVE T3 at all?  The idea of having to get the same tanks that fair worse against the Tiger to then be added to a Tier we almost never see "T4" and then have to fight both the Tiger and Panther; even if we have a huge load of S76s and CH7s you will not have enough Allied players to get in them at that point.  Most the VETs as DM pointed out are on the Axis side.. You know why that is?  Explain it away all you want, but in doing so you are promoting a deadly concoction of poison that will eventually KILL the allied side and ultimately the game as it did with the introduction of the Tiger and M10 line up. The S76 entering stopped the hemorage of allied players.  You are a spread sheet type of guy, spread sheets are just paper which do not put the human element into the equation. If this game ignores the human element, the game is destined to die. Its the same reason why this game so far does not allow for a 10;1 tank advantage on the allied side.  Its why we warp items in the later tiers.  The game has to try and achieve a realistic balance of ordinance with history.. History is set in stone so that leaves the balancing mechanism of bending history to make the game fun.  Not just for one side, but for all sides.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, delems said:

Why do the allies need more ATGs?  Their tier 0 ATG already kills every tiered panzer, from a depot no less?  I don't get the need?
 

Answer your own question... need I say the 88 which can kill all allied tanks from range in all tiers.. why do they need more ATGs?  All you need to do is tow them up.  OH they die quickly?  Well so do depot atgs because they are usually much closer to EI than the long ranged ones. I mean we can do point, counter point until the cows come home but how does that solve anything? 

IN all this discussion all I hear is get rid, move out, allies do not need, anything allied..   THIS cannot and will not work in totality that benefits only one side. There is no concession being offered up by the Axis fan boi's here.. Where in this thread have the allies said to the Axis, get rid of, move out or the Axis do not need without offering up a concession? 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an idea ,let's just take everything out of the game CRS gets to hide two Launch codes on the Frontline towns , then once we found them we have to get back to the launch table and who ever finds it gets to launch the nuke 1st.

Everything is even that way.

Let's just enjoy the game , hope that all the equipment that Scotsman hinted too makes it into the game one day. 

I think we are all capable of dealing with certain equipment that is in game.

Why am I all saying this cause I'm playing this map Allied with my free account , and so far I ran into the same crap I do on the Axis side. Shoot hit the guy 1st and before he dies I die, been shot on the Church roof next to the church tower covered by both roofs where only the guys from across the river could see me and imagine I got killed by a Squad mate on the hill behind me in his 3f , and there was no way he would be able to see me where I was.  Bottom on the roof line someone explain that to me, I was real close to switch sides and ask him how the F he was able to see me. But instead I helped a ATR that tried and tried to kill him .

Told him get behind him close and fire away after the 3rd or 4th round the 3f was smoking after additional 4 more rounds he went up in flames. That was my revenge for killing me 4 times and it felt good.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, stankyus said:

IN all this discussion all I hear is get rid, move out, allies do not need, anything allied..   THIS cannot and will not work in totality that benefits only one side. There is no concession being offered up by the Axis fan boi's here.. Where in this thread have the allies said to the Axis, get rid of, move out or the Axis do not need without offering up a concession? 

Hysterics and failed reasoning like this is why the game hasn't made any real progress in years.

 

The OP made a good point about a SMG getting timewarped when there already exist SMGs. If something gets timewarped it should be for a good reason. There are other good points in this thread. Saying that there needs to be a tit-for-tat approach to changes is killing the game via paralysis. CRS should change a bunch of stuff ASAP like making some weapons more accurate, some less accurate, reload timers and ability to be reloaded etc.

 

Using your reasoning the flak 30 can't be changed to the flak 38 despite it being an upgrade to one of the worst guns in the game because there's not equivalent buff to the allied side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, david01 said:

Hysterics and failed reasoning like this is why the game hasn't made any real progress in years.

 

The OP made a good point about a SMG getting timewarped when there already exist SMGs. If something gets timewarped it should be for a good reason. There are other good points in this thread. Saying that there needs to be a tit-for-tat approach to changes is killing the game via paralysis. CRS should change a bunch of stuff ASAP like making some weapons more accurate, some less accurate, reload timers and ability to be reloaded etc.

 

Using your reasoning the flak 30 can't be changed to the flak 38 despite it being an upgrade to one of the worst guns in the game because there's not equivalent buff to the allied side.

David read my responses before making kneejerk comments.  I said I DO NOT CARE one bit if the Grease gun becomes a RDP item.  That being said the Grease gun does not make or break any tier. ATM its best quality is range.. the Mas38 is a better CQB weapon because of its ROF.  Same with the Thompson.  All we would be doing is going back to what we had before though again its "new" content if put in its proper historic place will see the battlefield rarely.  Its the same point that Merlin made, with the German grenadier - why make a second grenadier when the one does the same? I guess we could warp it to T2... and as Merlin then followed up with "easily making the early cup grenade" to fill that area in.. Well we would need a second smg or something comparable in its place all things being equal. MB something asymmetric so we get something too.  When modelling new stuff, it cannot be just one sided and they need to be something we can actually see.  This is one reason why I advocate that the new modelling should be gap fillers and earlier tiered balancing.  Not a whole bunch of effort on T4 stuff simply because we RARELY get to T3 as it is and even less so to a T4 RDP.  You are illustrating my point about ALL Axis, no concession nor offering up any solution.

 

By my reasoning with the flak30 - well you don't know squat as I have long been an advocate to ADD the flak38 into the game.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This train wreck of a thread surfaces every few months with the same results.  

Does having this SMG time warped into 1940 make a difference in game balance ? Not a bit.  

Does it make the game a bit more fun for Allied players who hate the old french SMG? I think so, because when I play Allied I freakin hate the MAS SMG. 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stankyus said:

Answer your own question... need I say the 88 which can kill all allied tanks from range in all tiers.. why do they need more ATGs?  All you need to do is tow them up.  OH they die quickly?  Well so do depot atgs because they are usually much closer to EI than the long ranged ones. I mean we can do point, counter point until the cows come home but how does that solve anything? 

IN all this discussion all I hear is get rid, move out, allies do not need, anything allied..   THIS cannot and will not work in totality that benefits only one side. There is no concession being offered up by the Axis fan boi's here.. Where in this thread have the allies said to the Axis, get rid of, move out or the Axis do not need without offering up a concession? 

But we have heard "because you haven't played an ENTIRE campaign as Axis all the way thru from beginning to end,... you are not as uber as me and you are not allowed an opinion." Now THAT made me LMAO. 

Edited by lipton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, lipton said:

But we have heard "because you haven't played an ENTIRE campaign as Axis all at once, you are not as uber as me and you are not allowed an opinion." Now THAT made me LMAO. 

I played Axis for years.. I have even gone back Axis when the 23rd switched a few times and even as AEF we have switched 2x as a squad to the Axis side. Its not like I do not know what its like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, stankyus said:

I played Axis for years.. I have even gone back Axis when the 23rd switched a few times and even as AEF we have switched 2x as a squad to the Axis side. Its not like I do not know what its like.

I  know you have Stankyus, and I respect that. I wasn't referring to you in that statement. 

I think it's a great idea for everyone to get experience on both sides. I have done so myself. I have had several accounts over the years and have played Axis on MANY occasions. I get pwned no matter what side I play on.  I suk no matter what side I'm on. 

My comment is a  reply to Saronin. He seems to think people's opinions are worthless unless they commit to an ENTIRE campaign to the Axis side. That is horseshi*t. 

But he will continue to believe he is the ultimate expert of everything. Ok. lol 

If he wants to continue to claim he knows me... well, I'm ok with that. But he doesn't. heh.   

I guess he's the expert. Hell!  He's a legend in his own mind!!!1

Edited by lipton
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, david01 said:

Hysterics and failed reasoning like this is why the game hasn't made any real progress in years.

David, do you see a single DEV post in here arguing etc?
No you dont, only PLAYERS
So take you nonsense assumptions with you as you pass the exit mkay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lipton said:

I  know you have Stankyus, and I respect that. I wasn't referring to you in that statement. 

I think it's a great idea for everyone to get experience on both sides. I have done so myself. I have had several accounts over the years and have played Axis on MANY occasions. I get pwned no matter what side I play on.  I suk no matter what side I'm on. 

My comment is a  reply to Saronin. He seems to think people's opinions are worthless unless they commit to an ENTIRE campaign to the Axis side. That is horseshi*t. 

But he will continue to believe he is the ultimate expert of everything. Ok. lol 

If he wants to continue to claim he knows me... well, I'm ok with that. But he doesn't. heh.   

I guess he's the expert. Hell!  He's a legend in his own mind!!!1

Rgr that. Saronin is a good guy hes just basically putting forth a bad if/then argument... Like if you have not experienced being hit by a speeding driver you cannot comment on speeding. The other thing would be called the bandwagon fallacy which you see a lot with the discussion of the Tiger - IE the Tiger sucks and the more agreeing Axis opinion on it makes it true when in reality is by far the best tank on the field of battle once it enters and the Stats prove that out.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, merlin51 said:

You wont, soon hopefully.

Right now? yea even i hate it

I personally like it quite a bit, mb I'm weird that way but to me its just as good as the MP40 in CQB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, stankyus said:

Answer your own question... need I say the 88 which can kill all allied tanks from range in all tiers.. why do they need more ATGs?  All you need to do is tow them up.  OH they die quickly?  Well so do depot atgs because they are usually much closer to EI than the long ranged ones. I mean we can do point, counter point until the cows come home but how does that solve anything? 

IN all this discussion all I hear is get rid, move out, allies do not need, anything allied..   THIS cannot and will not work in totality that benefits only one side. There is no concession being offered up by the Axis fan boi's here.. Where in this thread have the allies said to the Axis, get rid of, move out or the Axis do not need without offering up a concession? 

Oh. But that is all I see on these forums. Too many Axis tanks in tier 0. Too may Tigers. Oh whoa is me the LMG....   It never ends. Yet suggest that the pak 38 be moved and you get... but but but the 88. The 88 is over rated for regular use. Particularly defense. But you you know that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, stankyus said:

I personally like it quite a bit, mb I'm weird that way but to me its just as good as the MP40 in CQB.

I want to like it, it should be a good smg, but unless its in your face action, like in a cp it's very hard to use.
Sparing with some guy 30m away is kind of laughable with it.
You take it and an mp34 and have the guys turn and fire at 50m, might be a long gun fight lol

It won't be when it's fixed up a little, should be a nice little pea shooter then.
So should the mp34

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, saronin said:

Oh. But that is all I see on these forums. Too many Axis tanks in tier 0. Too may Tigers. Oh whoa is me the LMG....   It never ends. Yet suggest that the pak 38 be moved and you get... but but but the 88. The 88 is over rated for regular use. Particularly defense. But you you know that. 

::FacePalm:; I feel helpless here. I used the 88 as an example of how we go tit for tat and achieve absolutely nothing and somehow you get that I am advocating/denigrating something about the 88?  I also do not think I have entered into a conversation about there being too many Axis tanks in T0 at all though I believe the allied tank numbers where reduced in T0 this map.

 

I will go back over my stance on the Pak38 in a bit -

 

The rule set for T0 entrance (which might or might not be valid anymore - Ill get to that) simply means that the Pak38 does not qualify for T0. Not my rule set - CRS's rule set for T0 equipment. They had to have been in action during the BoF. That disqualified the pak38 ALL the previous years for T0.  IF that rule has changed, THEN all bets are out the window and tanks like the PzH which had been advocated as a T0 Matty counter part for YEARS could be warped into T0.  IT never was. Why? See the T0 entrance rule set.. instead Axis got a huge increase in Armor - in particular the StugB and P4D numbers. Then they got more HEAT vrs AP and HE... THEN they got a fantasy HEAT round.. THEN they got all the 37mm firing cannons a 35-40% increase in its penetration due to some unknown very obscure data from "somewhere"... in which the devulsion of the source data was denied to the PB. IE its BS and just another fantasy round.  So if you are unfamiliar with the t0 rule set, let the history of the Axis increase in tank numbers, ammo TO&E and fantasy rounds be some sort of evidence as to how close to the vest they held the T0 ruleset when the easiest balancing mech at hand was the PzH and Pak38 hands down.

 

Now my stance on the Pak38;

1. The Czech 47mm is being modelled

2. The PzJr1 is being modelled

Those are already in the works for a entrance into T-0. This a great, it will help with the tanking game and some pretty potent but not over potent depot spawing ATGs.

Second point :

Scotsmans audits will be here at some point - I will caviat this point in the fact that it does not "help right now" along with the 47mm.

Final points:

1. The 47mm actually fits into the t-0 rule set

2. IF the pak38 is allowed into T-0 Axis will have 4 T-0 atgs.. but is that really necessary?

3. Begs the question; what about the allied long range HAA guns for ATG work in T-0?

4. IF its realllllly reallllly necessary for the Pak38 to enter into service in this game in T0 "right now" until the ammo audits with new TO&E..

I would be somewhat fine with that.. as long as it has a price.  However I would warn you that its a very slippery slope and I would bet the clamore for warping the PzH into T-0 would soon be next. That's the problem with you guys - once you are on a role you want more and when you get more you don't want to compromise or suggest that the allies should get something in return... let alone anything new. Not ONCE have I heard what the allies could have also in the process. Like I said before, I pay to play this game and my payment to this game should support the whole game, not just a side and especially not just the other side in which I chose not to play.  I want new toys to play with - and I mean actually get to play with - not once or twice a year.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stankyus said:

When modelling new stuff, it cannot be just one sided and they need to be something we can actually see.

 

You are illustrating my point about ALL Axis, no concession nor offering up any solution.

There's no need for concessions. If something with the equipment is bad or wrong then change it. Keep exceptions to the minimum and state why they're exceptions.

 

There is no good reason why a later war SMG can't be kicked to the later tiers, or why LMGs can't be made to not fire while on the move, reloaded on the move or have their hip fires adjusted. Hell just make it apply to the MG34 as preventing players from using it in close-quarters assaults is really a stealth buff anyway. There is almost total developmental paralysis of this game. I had multiple subs for years and watched the same whining about M10s and tigers monopolize every minor suggestion just like now. It's just a few values and lines of code but people are worried about concessions and some holistic notion of faction balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, merlin51 said:

I want to like it, it should be a good smg, but unless its in your face action, like in a cp it's very hard to use.
Sparing with some guy 30m away is kind of laughable with it.
You take it and an mp34 and have the guys turn and fire at 50m, might be a long gun fight lol

It won't be when it's fixed up a little, should be a nice little pea shooter then.
So should the mp34

 

ATM I can kill at longer ranges with the MP40 than the Mas38 easier.. not that I have not killed ei at 50m with the Mas38 its just you don't do it very often. I would say you are correct in comparing it to the Mp34 in that respect.  In CQB I really do not see a difference with any of the SMGs outside the Grease gun - I have to play it differently when approaching CQB - I lose more times than I do in CQB than I do in CQB when I have the Mas38.. the only thing the Grease gun does better than any of the other smgs is range.. 50m engagements and I, more that not come out on top.  ALL said and done - I would say that the only infantry weapons that have noticeable balance issues (can of worms here we come) Are specific to the grenadiers, LMGs, RPATs and ...... FG42.  I'm still waiting to see just a picture of the M1919 in progress instead of all this Axis equipment being modelled.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, david01 said:

There's no need for concessions. If something with the equipment is bad or wrong then change it. Keep exceptions to the minimum and state why they're exceptions.

 

There is no good reason why a later war SMG can't be kicked to the later tiers, or why LMGs can't be made to not fire while on the move, reloaded on the move or have their hip fires adjusted. Hell just make it apply to the MG34 as preventing players from using it in close-quarters assaults is really a stealth buff anyway. There is almost total developmental paralysis of this game. I had multiple subs for years and watched the same whining about M10s and tigers monopolize every minor suggestion just like now. It's just a few values and lines of code but people are worried about concessions and some holistic notion of faction balance.

If something is BAD or WRONG - change it.. Define your terms because I would bet your bad and wrong are not my bad and wrong.

To me bad is something that upsets balance or is detrimental to the game.  Wrong would be anything that is modelled or programmed to where its behavior is under or over performing. There is a third area - flaws or bugs but I don't think you are barking up that tree.

I was in the middle of a paragraph which I just deleted when it struck me.. You are not being consistent or reasonable in your argument which tells me that you are not really concerned with the game as a whole but bias driven agenda.  You said you walked because of all the bickering about equipment destroying anything new development of the game.. Yet, I'm asking about concessions in the process and you say we don't need any concessions. I said I'm fine with the T2 Tiger and moving the grease gun as a RDP item.. in which I made concessions.  Did I make a mistake by conceding those items to your wishes?  Did I inadvertently destroy development?  This is circular reasoning which makes your POV unreasonable.  Come back when you are reasonable. LOL.  I would just like to point out, I stayed a paying customer for 15 years, never pulling my subscription.. unlike you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, stankyus said:

ATM I can kill at longer ranges with the MP40 than the Mas38 easier.. not that I have not killed ei at 50m with the Mas38 its just you don't do it very often. I would say you are correct in comparing it to the Mp34 in that respect.  In CQB I really do not see a difference with any of the SMGs outside the Grease gun - I have to play it differently when approaching CQB - I lose more times than I do in CQB than I do in CQB when I have the Mas38.. the only thing the Grease gun does better than any of the other smgs is range.. 50m engagements and I, more that not come out on top.  ALL said and done - I would say that the only infantry weapons that have noticeable balance issues (can of worms here we come) Are specific to the grenadiers, LMGs, RPATs and ...... FG42.  I'm still waiting to see just a picture of the M1919 in progress instead of all this Axis equipment being modelled.

According to your hardline stance about what was and wasn't available for the BoF and therefore tier 0 the Grease gun is an absolute no go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, saronin said:

According to your hardline stance about what was and wasn't available for the BoF and therefore tier 0 the Grease gun is an absolute no go. 

YOU are imputing CRSs conduct of its own rule set on me and calling me hard lined? Transference anyone?

I have NEVER stated that the game should be hard lined about date of entrance ever - I have questioned need, balance, solution. and motive.

If I was hard lined about it, you would have been hearing me clamoring on about the German grenadier becoming a RDP item... I have not.

I have also said that I really don't care if the Grease gun becomes a RDP item however no smg in the game disrupts balance.

You sure you want to keep saying this about me?  You willing to RDP the Axis grenadier?

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*** The rule set for T0 entrance (which might or might not be valid anymore - Ill get to that) simply means that the Pak38 does not qualify for T0. Not my rule set - CRS's rule set for T0 equipment. They had to have been in action during the BoF. 

I see, and just how many grease guns were used by french in 1940?  Or Garands, by brits in 1941?  Know what hypocrite means?

 

You are so full of delusion it is almost not even worth chatting with you anymore.  Maybe go look at 88 starts (less than 1.0 KD) maybe go look at ATG stats....

B 1.1, F 0.92, G 0.65; with 44% more kills for allies.

The 88 is a terrible gun as designed, it can't spawn from depots, is a huge target, requires 2 players to even use and is slow as can be.

I bet I don't have 10 combat sorties with an 88 in some 8 years of playing this game, it is that bad.


As for never getting to use late tier stuff, well, axis doesn't either - what's the beef?  All the more reason for development to focus more on filling out tier 0, 1 and 2 items imo.

 

The grease gun in no way shape or form belongs in game prior to 1943.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites