Sr. Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

165 Good

About dat.duck

  • Rank
    Staff Sergeant

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
  • Soldier
    All types

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. i mean obviously reto they pay for the servers /DUH/
  2. dat.duck

    Describe me like one of your German equipment

    not really in my opinion, the limiting factor in most scenarios for germany, but for almost all nations in ww2 was manpower, also often I don't think it was necessarily a quest to research everything but the fact that germany had very diverse combat experience, they captured alot of semi automatic rifles from the russians early on, and also smgs, And from ww2 they realised that MG's were for sure the way to go and that if they wanted to win anything it would have to be a mobile war. (they tested their theories in poland, and then with mainly luck, and poor management of their oponents were very succesful in france.) I mean when you look at most of the weapons the germans were Iconic for it's either expanding on knowledge from ww1 or combat experience that motivated their developments, I won't say that they did not waste resources on many projects, or often rushed deployment, but if you really look down on most things alot of them kinda make sense or are not that far off the mark. The king tiger was too big but the core element (imo) the gun was desperately needed considering what tanks the russians were about to start fielding en masse. The panther was a rushed but eventually very capable tank. The panzerschrek was just an improved and upscaled bazooka from north africa, the g43 was to the svt, what the ak was to the stg. And the mass employment of Stugs was very smart imo, Using the STG was also fine. Germany always needed the most bang per man that they could possibly get. But it was a war they were never going to win anyways. I think the only reason germany got as far as it did was its somewhat flexible staff and good leverage of combat experience, they tried their best, but often that isn't enough.
  3. dat.duck

    Wings Of Liberty Update

    I think that there are a few issues. 1. I doubt there will be any new aircraft for now and the near future, For sure not glider Infantry, lots of changes are simply not attainable with the current workforce reto has available. 2. I think changes to air gameplay are very probable, Hades recently made a post detailing what the next goals are, Plane to Tank interactions will for sure be looked at. And a comment, Lots of these planes will be very difficult to distinguish from the current planes, the yak - 2 is incredibly similar to the pe -2, in reality its simply totally inferior. the il-2 and pe would both do the same role of a light bomber better. And regarding the A-26 there is no way these Lineups are ballanced. The level at which air warfare developed in WW2 was immense, you cant just compare a plane that first flew in 1942 to planes that flew in 1939 and regarding the do 17 in 1937. If you compare the a26 to the jak 2, the a26 has 3x more possible bombweight in the the bomb bay to the yak 2 in total, at max this is 2700kg to 600kg. I can absolutely respect the effort but at the moment it is simply not balanced at all. If you compare the MG armaments it becomes even more absurd in my opinion. At that point less iconic but also well produced options could be the JU 188, with 3000kg bomb load but less offensive and defensive armament. For the soviets you could choose the tu2. though you still have to remember that these bombers are not nearly as well armed offensively. I don't know wether this has to do with the fact that germany and the soviets usually fought from the ground where fighter escorts would be easy to organize, whereas with the US and the A-26 had to also be capable in the pacific where range was a more limiting factor and well you had to carry your defence with you etc. So cheers, I like the spirit but there is some refinement that can and should still happen. And if we want to add ground attack aircraft I would suggest cannon armed medium to light bombers.
  4. dat.duck

    Gun Smoke

    How many of you all want a reduction in gun smoke. 1. how much in percent? 2. Which guns need extra attention. please leave a comment below and share.
  5. well right I think I would agree with that stance, but I think it's equally absurd to say that because something was standard in ww2 it was the best option in combat, usually it was the best option mainly due to economics and production capacities. I do Agree that we should get the game as accurate as possible historically as long as we don't have to sacrifice playability. I really really hope that the ppd, ppsh, and mg42 rpm increases work well, they may not. but if they do that is a step in the direction of more accuracy. You can always argue about damage and range etc. but in the long run people that say rifles have to be the best because they were most issued and the game has to become the way I want to play it, because i'm right and and everyone else is wrong is just foolish. Maybe there are to many automatic weapons, and maybe rifles should be better, But most players do not have an issue performing with either. we are still rolling the dice on the Ratte and KV 2-2-2 ^^
  6. VERY BIG AGREE there was reasons that before ww2 the Soviet red army was trying to transition to the svt there was a reason that the US used the M1 garand, and they produced 5.4 million, but later focused on the M1 carbine etc and produced 6.1 million There was a reason that the Soviets mass produced smgs, and the germans developed the STG and had a high focus on LMG's The only reason nations used the k98 etc is because they had a shirt ton of them from ww1, this also goes for weapons like the BAR etc. And it's expensive to inovate on new ammunition tooling etc. Given the chance the germans tried out only stg and mg42 squads and they liked it. The Soviets Developed (not copied) the AK largely probably to their encounters with MKB 42's in stalingrad etc. The only thing that prevented the replacement of bolt actions was time and tooling, They were not the Dominant weapons of the battlefield they were the leftovers from a previous era that was a solid foundation to deploy better weapon systems on. Edit* im all for making SA's better earlier on but generally speaking they have their role and can be very powerful. BUT this game is on an entirely WHAT IF scenario. and if ww2 had lasted dare I say even 1 year longer, the russians would have been fielding the SKS, the germans would have had way more STG's and the US would be running around with M2's in europe.
  7. I mean to me it kinda boils down to how soon do you aim to force a player to use burst, and thereby drastically limit their dps. Slightly higher recoil should do it, a factor per bullet could also do it? To me it kinda is interesting as well, i'd rather have a few less changes but it may take a while after this round to get more changes to check what the effect is? I am very very glad about the PPSH and PPD rof changes though, So the two focuses the game needs imo, is a little less range focus, IE drop ranges for assault rifles maybe? maybe for lmgs as well? talking like 20 m max? And also increase recoil a bit, but make it "controllable" not completely but you should have a distinct impact on the recoil development.
  8. the idea behind this is that even 30% damage increases won't bring SU smg's to 3hk, that would of course mean that their shots to kill stays the same but for the MP40 and thompson it would go down quite a bit. So the rpm change is better in two ways, one it keeps the ppsh and ppd damage closer to their counterparts, and it increases their rpm which allows them to make better use of their drum magazines. The Idea is of course to buff all smgs, the rpm changes are to make sure that the SU smgs maintain parity with the other smgs. My personal take is probably to keep the rpms high on the ppd and ppsh, keep them at 4hk but give them a very shallow damage curve so they perform better at range, so regarding the Assault rifles the AVS can become more ranged focused like semi auto rifles, while SU SMG's creep up the cqc to mid range performance where they can better compete vs STG and M2 than the other smgs. I think this is fair and a better way of making SU smgs, the ppd and ppsh unique from the other factions. and ideally ppsh and ppd would be best smgs of their tier ofc.
  9. dat.duck

    Bring STG rpm back

    I mean i watched through the videos you posted and I really don't think they underline your statement. In short yes the STG is way more accurate than the M2. And you can get kills if the people you are shooting a aren't capable/ care too shoot back. What I can take from your videos is that the stg is jsut an average weapon, you can get kills at long range. But not against capable oponents. In the videos you rely heavily on bandages, what if your oponents don't have large medic packs then that is the part of the build that is making you proficient. I also really have to underline that war videos don't really prove anything. If anything they are polarizing because you are either facing coordinated teams (the best of the game), or you are facing randoms grinding of the extra xp (the worst of the game) The STG is average at all ranges especially stock at longer ranges capable oponents will bleed you and your bandages, at short range the lack of rpm will get you a loss, especially since you have to bandage after every engagement. If you compare it to the competent weapons at that range atm, the AVS, the BAR it will really be a toss up who wins. The narrative has really moved on from where you guys are at.
  10. dat.duck

    Sherman vs Panther part 2 ...

    @OddBall06 I don't know why you are missing the point, it is no big deal at all but what @GermanSoldier says is more or less true. Apart from hyperbole. How easy a vehicle is to maintain makes a big difference since you have far less strain on your logistics but the main factor is that as a defender it is very difficult to almost impossible to recover vehicles that could in theory be repaired or even salvaged. This simply comes from the nature of the benefit of being the attacking force. Usually your front is moving forwards or ideally stable that means that your logistics and maintenance crews which is a very very large part of your entire armed forces. Have a much easier time recovering your vehicles in an organized manner and salvaging spare parts from vehicles that can not be repaired. If for instance the US was on the defensive and being pushed back by the germans like the russians were in 1941 their spare parts wouldn't be very valuable if they can't recover broken down vehicles. The factory capacity would have been better invested into building more operational tanks. This is a very good video imo on simply the logistical aspect. I mean simple maths tells you that 225 men are asigned to combat in the vehicle itself, then you have a few replacement crews. and then almost an entire third, near 300 men are simply assigned to maintaining and repairing the tanks. The effectiveness of this unit massively depends on how well those 300 men can operate in an ideal scenario. In short the simplicity of repair is only something you can leverage to a large extent if you are the attacking more stable force that can dictate the terms of combat. If that is not the case you may be better off simply having a vehicle that will perform better in combat since the chance of getting to repair it (on the defence) is probably lower.
  11. dat.duck

    Badge Evaluations

    This reminds me a bit of red orchestra 2 gun experience, I wonder wether it would really be worth it though because it might have to be quite limited. But the Idea in itself is nice, not sure on a good implementation.
  12. dat.duck

    Badge Evaluations

    I'm not certain myself but some of these badges tight grip being the largest one would probably see changes. The main focus is to reduce the impact of the badges so that they don't mess with the balance of weapons and that the weapons are good and usable without badges. Hopefully this could be done in one patch but it would probably be in two stages. At theat point the question is buff weapons first or nerf badges first. well you could take out the aircraft badges and then you essentially have badges that all are an influence to gunplay, which badges do you think should have a higher percentage to be ballanced? Or lower both is an option. well in that case you understood at least the motivation behind it all, we want to reduce the effectiveness of badges so that newer players are at less of a disadvantage and to make gunbalance easier.
  13. dat.duck

    Badge Evaluations

    After some discussion between the moderators and community managers about the strength of badges we want to hand the baton over to you guys so to say. The following badges are currently being cosidered: Dead-Eye Fast Reload Quickdraw Infantry First Pointer Quick Fire Bombs Away Flak Jacket Tight Grip There are considerations to also decrease the effect of Marathon man and Mechanic. Gunner probably a little less since it only has an effect of 20% but it isn't off the table completley. If there are any questions or things that are unclear I will do my best to clear it up. Cheers Dat.Duck
  14. i mean if it is recon vs reconplanes it's more ok, you can as long as you don't kill infantry you can get a somewhat equal exchange of wfs
  15. dat.duck

    The issue of Nazi related names in Chinese.

    I would make a ticket on the support website and you can maybe try and contact chinese speaking mods. @Recon_At_The_Disco and @TFEG I think both may be able to either verify and forward it. I can't speak chinese and the manpower for issues like this is limited but the Staff that have the authority try to use the time they get to also deal with this.