Rdanzer

Members - Veterans
  • Content count

    1,506
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

589 Excellent

6 Followers

About Rdanzer

  • Rank
    Lt. Colonel

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
    Germany
  • Soldier
    All types

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. What we need is exactly the opposite: Remove random queuing. ONLY allow queuing for specific battles. For new players you then need a system side war battle filter interface where the player searching for a battle can pick from a list of battles with their requirements if they haven't learnt yet how to pick battles from the map. - This would include the option of battles already started and not yet filled up and therefore no waiting needed. Each battle on the war map then shows who is queuing for that battle. If you see a clan queuing for that battle then new players will avoid it. The "Complete Random" player phenomenon will completely evaporate and disappear. For example battles already started and not yet filled up the new player could see if he would be willing to join it - according to what the resources and players are that are already in it, in exchange for not having to wait.
  2. Rdanzer

    Changing deploy time of AT guns

    This is currently my main gripe with the current situation.... tank vs tank play has to be a viable option. Currently when you have the choice of your using own tank or AT inf against an enemy tank proving to be a problem in winning a map a lot of veterans choose the AT inf because it's overall simply simply better at solving the situation. That is just silly. Completely rediculous. Improve tank vs tank play and a lot of tanker griping will go away. My problem is not so much AT inf - my problem is tank vs tank is so weak.
  3. Rdanzer

    Changing deploy time of AT guns

    Just saying "Infantry just need to act good (in supporting tanks) and all will be ok" is like saying "Everybody just needs to drive good and there will never again be any car accidents". It's correct - but completely unrealistic to expect. If we want tanks to be good due to cooperation between players you need to also incentivize these actions. My suggestion would be to significantly increase the score infantry players get in supporting tanks. Currently it's obviously much too low since it does not happen enough. A simple measure which would also make it clear what tankers need to be doing (playing in such a fashion that in cooperation with infantry they play as a team.) Take-away: Tanks need to be SIGNIFICANT score multipliers for infantry. Tanks can otherwise remain completely the same. So it's a player choice: either higher score due to supporting tanks as infantryman, or play the tanker.
  4. Thanks for the reply @Reto.Hades. Do have any rough idea what kind of a benefit would this mean for the players?...........the servers will perfrom better?.......Reto can save money in some way with the server maintenance?.... anything? I am fine with this kind of motivation as long as there is some kind of benefit for the customers..... the players .....Would be nice to communicate this as well.
  5. Yeah why are they doing that? Was anybody complaining about 2 hour battles???............ The long battles have been some of the most fun times here in H&G. Why in the world is Reto doing this? It's not like these long battles are very often........... just let it be. If a player does not want to play in such a battle they can just quit the battle. So why in the world change this?
  6. I have a fighter AT in the resupply queue where only 5 fighters need to be resupplied (currently 19 of 24), but they will not get resupplied. The pilots are full 24 of 24. For several days now the queue number will go down and reach a really low number and then jump back up again to over three thousend without having the planes be resupplied. The AT does not move and is in an airfield very close to a friendly capital way behind front lines. I have more than enough warfunds to pay for the resupply but the resupply will not activate for some reason. The queue number just goes to like one or something similar and then jumps back up again to 3000+ without anything happening. I have no other AT's in my queue. Does anyone else have this problem?
  7. Rdanzer

    New Grenades!

    About Heavy Grenades.... throwing velocity of 15 m/s but blast radius of 25m..............does this mean that if you throw the grenade at a distance where it flies for only 1 second or less you essentially damage yourself as the thrower of the grenade? i.e. you can't throw heavy grenades far enough without hurting yourself?..............or is there something wrong with these numbers?
  8. Rdanzer

    Newspaper for Allied Armed forces

    Yes Indeed!!.............. What's up with the US faction? You guys have not capped London or Rotterdam even once in this entire time of the new capital placements....!! don't you want to get back to jolly, old England? When I authored these capital distrubutions I knew from years long experience that being in the mediterranean could be tough.... but I did not expect the US faction to sink to this new low. It's a shadow of it's former self. Come on you guys can do better than that! I know you can. Get in there and push back to London and may I even dare say... Edinburgh!!!!?
  9. But HEY - it's perfectly balanced!!!!!!!! Every player of every faction has the same issue............ 😉
  10. Yes well then we agree that resource overload is a problem. .... it's a result of the vast resource inflation over the last years which Reto never spent any time on addressing. If you care about small generals then you can't just ignore this problem. If every town has huge amounts of resources small generals will get no opportunity to have their AT's used. Strategy game becomes meaningless as well for them. There has to be other ways to fix the waiting-for-a-battle problem than decreasing the amounts of towns. Yes changing the matchmaker process would be an idea. What people fail to realize is the interaction between RTS and FPS - for example if we would have specialist only maps on the RTS that would also help the matchmaker process in war; it would essentially be indirect impementation of fatal-is suggestions. But Reto never realized this end-goal idea of introducing specialist only maps in the RTS - they are currently only in staged. How stupid is that? Neglect of the RTS is at the core of all these problems: - Having a supply system would help with resource inflation and resource overload. - Having specialist maps would help with the matchmaker process in war. All nice ideas - great intentions - never implemented. ........................."The path to hell is paved with good intentions."
  11. Rdanzer

    Get rid of the underdog bonus

    For whom is overpopulation a problem? All FPS battles are 18 vs 18.. SU clans can pop all battles they want... SU is currently winning all wars... so how exactly is overpopulation a problem for whom? In my eyes overpopulation is currently a problem for the OVERPOPULATED side. I have no problem with the underdog bonus.... IF it would work.... I just see that is does not solve the problem of why it exists in fhe first place. I think it's time to try something new.
  12. Again ... AT Mods!!! Why? Because when every vehicle has it's own AT then you can make the AT's have vehicle specific characteristics. For planes this means individual RANGE - let every plane AT have a range equal to the range of the actual plane it has as a resouce. This gives you a whole new dimension of balancing planes in the strategy game. Especially the US medium fighter Tier 3 - the Mustang should have the largest range of all medium Fighter AT's ..... IF it would have an AT where only Mustangs could spawn. Then this "Mustang AT" would have an additional balancing point. This was actually the advantage of the Mustang in real life - it could accompany the bombers to Berlin. That was more important than anything else. We already have heavy tank destroyer and heavy fighter AT's where only one vehicle can spawn - so why not others too?: https://imgur.com/a/Bs39ZU1 Reto is missing out on so many opportunities here it's sad.
  13. I understand your point about waiting too long for a battle to pop which is indeed annoying - however you are completely ignoring the problem of resource overload on the RTS map. If you decrease the amout of towns on the map to such an extent that waiting times are significantly impacted the resource overload problem will become extremely terrible. In the end you will have a WW1 type situation where strategic manuvering is completely dead and there really will be no sense anymore in having a RTS map in the first place. Having players admininstrate resources (here in H/G "AT's") has to have at it's core the issue of player choice in the distribution of limited resources. If resource density is so high that practically everything is available everywhere and there are no resource limitations then for all practical purposes there is no more strategy game. You might as well have something like a "staged plus" end-game. Reto systematically ignored the resource inflation problem in the RTS for so long that we have now gone beyond the point of this idea being viable.
  14. We have discussed this topic to death before - it would destroy strategy because it would be exploited to no end by the players. Once you know exactly WHEN a battle will start you can send packets of 216 foot inf in all directions blocking everything. Actually fighting the battles would be simple: All you would need to do is send in more equipment right before the battle actually starts - since you know exactly WHEN a battle will start. These inf blocks would become the new meta. All tactical manuvering comes to a screeching halt. 216 foot inf packs would rule supreme. Fighting battles exactly when they occur is a good idea, however only possible when you have many more war players than battles happening. Because you always need at least 18 players of each faction "waiting" for a battle to happen ALL the time, because they can be created at any time. This community is not large enough nor willing enough to have that kind of "waiting for a war battle" game situation.
  15. Which also means: In the RTS... OVERPOPULATION is a disadvantage. Sounds crazy when you read it just like that - but yes, because of exactly what you say, overpopulation here in the H&G RTS game is also a disadvantage. Asking players to voluntarily balance the factions is like asking to end all poverty in this world - a nice dream, a wonderfull goal to aspire to, but never going to actually happen. Forcing population balance however would be worse for this game. I certainly do NOT want battles to be popped in a forced fashion either, because then all strategy goes out the window. The only thing we are left with is how else to compensate this disadvantage?