XOOM

LMG Solution Planned

347 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, csm308 said:

We'll save this and all the other statements made by Allied "realists" the next time an Allied advantage gets, ahem, "fixed." Undoubtedly they'll say exactly the same thing.  Won't they?  Hmmmm?  For sure they will say the exact same thing, Right?

VR

It will be fine IF the LMG fix (and the running and gunning was just daft) is extended to all the other nonsense running and gunning we see.

Every  infantry weapon needs the fix applied, slow walk and suppressing fire fine, but running and firing is just wrong.

 

S! Ian

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We'll save this and all the other statements made by Allied "realists" the next time an Allied advantage gets, ahem, "fixed." Undoubtedly they'll say exactly the same thing.  Won't they?  Hmmmm?  For sure they will say the exact same thing, Right?

Right.

British and French HEAT sapper charges should be removed...they never existed.

(Replace with British and French HEAT RGs that did exist...British Tier 0, French Tier 1...but more realistically constrain their mechanics. German Fallshirmjaegers get a weak HEAT RG Tier 3. All Germans get an effective HEAT RG Tier 6.)

Edited by jwilly
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, csm308 said:

We'll save this and all the other statements made by Allied "realists" the next time an Allied advantage gets, ahem, "fixed." Undoubtedly they'll say exactly the same thing.  Won't they?  Hmmmm?  For sure they will say the exact same thing, Right?

VR

As an Allied "realist", I say bring it on. Realistic weapons modelling is the only way forward to avoid bias; like a simulator, you model it the best you can to reality and let the players figure out how to use it. At least you will not hear me complaining about it. Now let's remove sappers and get on with correct modelling of early war AT weapons.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, raptor34 said:

As an Allied "realist", I say bring it on. Realistic weapons modelling is the only way forward to avoid bias; like a simulator, you model it the best you can to reality and let the players figure out how to use it. At least you will not hear me complaining about it.

Agreed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Right.

British and French HEAT sapper charges should be removed...they never existed.

(Replace with British and French HEAT RGs that did exist...British Tier 0, French Tier 1...but more realistically constrain their mechanics. German Fallshirmjaegers get a weak HEAT RG Tier 3. All Germans get an effective HEAT RG Tier 6.)

You are, of course, forgetting why the Allied HEAT RG's were removed.  The "Rambo LMG" manner they were being used.  German Panzer drivers would death spiral out and see the Allied RG grenadier laying right next to the panzer, completely unharmed.

VR

Edited by csm308

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, csm308 said:

You are, of course, forgetting why the Allied HEAT RG's were removed.  The "Rambo LMG" manner they were being used.  German Panzer drivers would death spiral out and see the Allied RG grenadier laying right next to the panzer.

VR

So, if I understand, it was found that the Allies were using the HEAT RGs in a gamey fashion, thus they were eliminated in order to improve gameplay?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, csm308 said:

We'll save this and all the other statements made by Allied "realists" the next time an Allied advantage gets, ahem, "fixed." Undoubtedly they'll say exactly the same thing.  Won't they?  Hmmmm?  For sure they will say the exact same thing, Right?

VR

The aircraft damage model audit will likely put an end to the ridiculous ruggedness found on certain Allied aircraft (cough Spitfires cough), and it's a change I wholeheartedly welcome.  It will give a reason for people to fly French, since the P-40 should come out of the audit a little bit tougher than it currently is (right now it's probably the easiest Allied fighter to shoot down, and you only need BBs to wtfsplode it in its sweet spot).  

 

There will be some Spitdweebs who cry to high heaven though, no doubt.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, csm308 said:

We'll save this and all the other statements made by Allied "realists" the next time an Allied advantage gets, ahem, "fixed." Undoubtedly they'll say exactly the same thing.  Won't they?  Hmmmm?  For sure they will say the exact same thing, Right?

VR

You are welcome to save this, along with every other statement I've made regarding improving gameplay over the years, as it has all been oriented towards making the gameplay more accurate (perfect is thus far an impossible goal but hope springs eternal) representation of the Battle for France in 1940, (and given how long campaigns can last, the years thereafter).  Your effort to imply that I have been, or will be, disingenuous regarding this and other issues is duly noted, and not appreciated in the least.  If you wish to be credible, ceasing to baselessly attack the honesty of fellow community members without a shred of evidence, is in your best interest(s).

 

S!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, augetout said:

You are welcome to save this, along with every other statement I've made regarding improving gameplay over the years, as it has all been oriented towards making the gameplay more accurate (perfect is thus far an impossible goal but hope springs eternal) representation of the Battle for France in 1940, (and given how long campaigns can last, the years thereafter).  Your effort to imply that I have been, or will be, disingenuous regarding this and other issues is duly noted, and not appreciated in the least.  If you wish to be credible, ceasing to baselessly attack the honesty of fellow community members without a shred of evidence, is in your best interest(s).

 

S!

My personal experience in these forums over the past 18 years says something other than what you said, will be what actually happens.

VR

Edited by csm308

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for historical additions to the game as long as there is no side bias..allies get rgs that need to be shot from a distance (not hard at all..there was no need to be next to the hull). Axis don't have a comparable unit so what do they get? Reduced number of heat sapper charges at reduced effectiveness?

The historical argument can be broken when the allied artillery is just ignored. It was a major part of most allied attacks, and ignoring that fact just makes the historical argument null and void. Of course its not the devs fault..true arty is not implentable without server tracked objects.

@XOOMany news on STO's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, csm308 said:

My personal experience in these forums over the past 18 years says something other than what you said, will be what actually happens.

VR

Doubling down is a  poor excuse for your lack of accuracy.  I'm a pre-day 1 member of this community, served in AHC as a General in charge of the French Army in the early days (think cat-herding, pre-TOE), and have always been a vocal critic of anything that smacks of red v blue, or anything that artificially balances gameplay.  If indeed your experience in these forums has been different, then I suggest it is because you haven't paid attention to my posts.  Had you done so, then your experience in these forums would have been different, and perhaps you wouldn't be so quick to imply a lack of honesty on my part.

 

Augetout was an11bgod, and you are welcome to fruitlessly search the old forums (or these) for anything I've said that even remotely suggests I am anything but a proponent for historically accurate gameplay, and the elimination and/or mitigation of artificial gameplay balance.

 

S!

Edited by augetout
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2019 at 10:41 PM, delems said:

Well, hope allies happy.

Now have the best tank, ATG, armored car, fighter, bomber and bolt rifle;  rest being equal.

I suppose our Flak 38 is better than allied light AA.... we get one maybe.

 

ROTFLMAO!!!

In anything much after tier 0, Axis tanks blow the crap out of most Allied tanks at distances where the Allied tanks might as well be spitting at their enemies.

The Axis has the FlaK. 36 (the 88).  Just what Allied ATG is better than that?

The Axis' He 111 is slower than the Allied bombers but carries more than twice the bomb load, which is the entire point of a bomber.  The Axis has the Stuka, the best dive bomber in the game.

Shall I continue?

 

 

 

-Irish

 

 

Edited by odonovan1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jet2019 said:

I am all for historical additions to the game as long as there is no side bias..allies get rgs that need to be shot from a distance (not hard at all..there was no need to be next to the hull). Axis don't have a comparable unit so what do they get? Reduced number of heat sapper charges at reduced effectiveness?

The historical argument can be broken when the allied artillery is just ignored. It was a major part of most allied attacks, and ignoring that fact just makes the historical argument null and void. Of course its not the devs fault..true arty is not implentable without server tracked objects.

@XOOMany news on STO's?

the allies weren't the only ones with artillery - you make it seem like only they used it on attack. arty made up a giant percentage of the total casualties for all sides.

 

it also REALLY sucks in video games - especially ones with fixed spawn locations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, madrebel said:

the allies weren't the only ones with artillery - you make it seem like only they used it on attack. arty made up a giant percentage of the total casualties for all sides.

 

it also REALLY sucks in video games - especially ones with fixed spawn locations.

the allies weren't the only ones with artillery - you make it seem like only they used it on attack. arty made up a giant percentage of the total casualties for all sides.

 

it also REALLY sucks in video games - especially ones with fixed spawn locations.

Artillery as a notional unit, i.e. one that doesn't really exist as manned by players, but exists as an asset to be called upon, could work, imho, and I would welcome it.  The germans had artillery?  ;)

 

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, odonovan1 said:

The Axis' Me 110 is slower than the Allied bombers but carries more than twice the bomb load, which is the entire point of a bomber.

no it doesnt.

havoc recently got more powerful bombs and it has 8 of them. essentially 4 x the bombload. db7 has 8 x 200kg vs the 2 x 250kg on the 110. blen4 has 2 x 500lbers now iirc or is it 4? doesnt matter the blen sucks and bombs don't really kill much on the ground anymore.

i know, i know - they're better at killing infantry now. so?

Share this post


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

Artillery as a notional unit, i.e. one that doesn't really exist as manned by players, but exists as an asset to be called upon, could work, imho, and I would welcome it.  The germans had artillery?  ;)

 

S!

sure, needs a lot of command and control functionality as well as ammo tracking. you'd have to have some sort of hard limiters on it though. fixed known spawns = super awful gameplay even if we had the 80mm medium mortars. would need a lot more mobile spawn options otherwise the game would just break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, madrebel said:

the allies weren't the only ones with artillery - you make it seem like only they used it on attack. arty made up a giant percentage of the total casualties for all sides.

 

it also REALLY sucks in video games - especially ones with fixed spawn locations.

Depends on how it is made i suppose, on how much it sucks.
If it is too much of a point N shoot thing, yes, that can be kind of bad.
If it is truly indirect fire affair, requiring the help and cooperation of forward positioned players as well as people supplying ammo, then maybe not so bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry...meant to type He 111 and typed Me 110 in error.  Fixed.  Wiki still shows 2000 kg vs 944 kg bomb loads.

 

 

 

-Irish

 

 

Share this post


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

blen4 has 2 x 500lbers now iirc or is it 4? doesnt matter the blen sucks and bombs don't really kill much on the ground anymore.

2 GP500's
No not near as good as the MC500 or F200, they can kill a tank though, if you can hit it anyways.
I am not good at all with being that precise with a blen.
They do hurt the lighter stuff with a miss though, even like a 38t or PZII

The little 40's are only good for raining on infantry towed guns and trucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

blen4 has 9 total kills this map - 0 against anything with wheels/tracks and a motor. 7 infantry, 2 guns. lol

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, madrebel said:

maybe - idk i forget.

According to the in-game manual, that's what it says for each aircraft.

 

8 F200s would put it on par with the He111 bombload lol.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raptor34 said:

As an Allied "realist", I say bring it on. Realistic weapons modelling is the only way forward to avoid bias; like a simulator, you model it the best you can to reality and let the players figure out how to use it. At least you will not hear me complaining about it. Now let's remove sappers and get on with correct modelling of early war AT weapons.

+1

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with arty on fixed spawn locations. We have mortars now and the fact that they are still used mostly for smoke is telling. Softening up a target before sending in the troops was SOP for both sides.

Hopefully in the future the devs can come up with a plan that allows both sides to use artillery, even if its just the ao oic asking AI to just shell a certain coordinate with some randomness.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.