Rdanzer

Well exactly the other way around - the AT modding idea comes from the basic fact that you can have AT's of the same rank level in different kinds of configurations. i.e. Inf Rank 1 AT's either configured with no vehicles and more infantry spawns or less infantry and with motorcycles. Rank 1 Tank AT's either with medium tank destroyers or medium tanks. A "modding system" would essentially amount to a player determined configuration system with all kinds of configurations possible within a framework of restrictions defined by such things as rank level of the AT and how many command points you wish to use to equip that AT to a general. So the more experienced the AT the more kind of higher level vehicles it could be configured with; in addition more command points dedicated to having to equip the AT would mean the more max spawns it could have. AT's could have their configurations changed from one to the next. All of this of course costing WF's or gold accordingly. In the end a system for Generals where AT's are modded like weapons for Herores. ............. I don't know why Reto didn't do this a long time ago as it would represent a whole new source of income.... but oh, well.

If Reto wants to earn money with the strategy system a better idea would be to introduce a modding system for AT's. Sort of what like weapons are for heroes AT's would be for generals. This would be a much larger potential market as then not only can every AT can be modded and but also every General would need to earn the badge skills for modding like the badge skills for weapons with heroes.

Extremely BAD idea. Two major points which you do not consider at all and which will making waiting for battles to be played worse, and encourage blocking: 1) Heroes and Generals is a three way war and NOT a two side war. What happens when battles are being created with all three combinations of US-GE, US-SU and SU-GE? If you have one single list of battles all three types will be mixed up in that list, you create of kinds of matchmaking problems. For example what happens when a US-SU battle cannot be filled and you have GE players waiting for a battle and US players wanting to play against those GE players. They cannot match up as the US-SU battle has to be played first.... and now you have players potentially waiting for hours for the US-SU battle(s) to fill ..... VERY BAD. 2) All movement strategy goes out the window. What do you do about generals moving around stacks of only 216 infantry just to start battles and increase the battle list? They can do that because they know the battle WILL NOT START until the starting battles reaches these 216 inf battles. In addition all battles AFTER THESE will not start until these 216 inf battles are reached. So while they wait until these start they can wait with putting in other resources of any other kind until the starting battle has reached this battle in the list. This will make blocking even MORE effective....you are encouraging BLOCKING.... VERY BAD.

Yes that's possible - however that player still needs to make the effort of buying all the generals and AT's...... as Reto is still taking all the money it gets from selling strategy game content and not doing any significant development there and don't seem to care about alt accounts and strategy game resource inflation, this would enable them to sell even more strategy game content by making clan tools ......🤣😜

Hello, This is not exactly a bug, but a minor error in the strategy map which noone paid attention to when selecting starting capitals: At the very start of a war when no towns have been capped all starting capitals have some surrounding towns attributed to a faction for AT's to be able to be deployed. This should include an airfield so that fighter AT's can be deployed. HOWEVER when Stockholm is a starting capital this does NOT include an airfield!! So there is no way to deploy fighter or paratroopers AT's in Stockholm until an airfield in the vicinity is captured....in particular there is no airfield close enough to count for these "starting ownership-around-a-capital" towns..... When you try to deploy fighter AT's in this situation an error message in the pop-up deployment window occurs where no airfields are available and these AT's are not put into your deployment queue. So I don't know if you can correct this - but I would say that Stockholm is not the best of choices for a starting capital.

All it would need to be is an OPTIONAL ability to move other clan members AT's...i.e. only if you as the owner allow it, would others be able to move them. Somthing which you could switch on and off. This would allow those players who would want to, to let their AT's stand at the front knowing other clan players could move them around as necessary if the war situation requires it when they are offline. If you don't want your AT's moved by others just simply don't allow it. Ideally this would be AT centered..... then it would really be super-cool. You could have AT's which other players of your clan could move and others which only you can use. This would allow players to create clan-controlled AT groups where each player of a clan contributes some of his AT's to these "clan-AT's"... When logging in you would then immdiately see where the clan AT's are operating and could move the AT's which only you control to this area to further support the operations there.

This does not make sense because of the following points: 1) The existance of tank destroyers. According to this logic there is absolutely no reason to have tank destroyers let alone HEAVY tank destroyers.... 2) If what you say was right then HE shell types should then be one of the first shell types available in the unlocks - but they are not - they are EXPLICITLY hard to get.... so until a tanker unlocks HE he is not performing his "game-meta-logic" of being the "artillery-alternative"???... So what does he do until then? Is he a sacrifical lamb for AT-Rambos to grind their equipment? 3) Reto has the made the fundamental game spcialization "TANK HUNTER"........ so what is that all about? Some sick joke on part of Reto because the game-meta is actually something completely different? I'm sorry but no, it would be a completely stupid game design to want to have infantry be the best weapon against tanks. FRIENDLY tanks should be the best weapon against enemy tanks (disregarding planes for a moment). That's why tank destroyers and heavy tank destroyers exist in the first place. That's why AP and APCR are available BEFORE HE. If Reto wants your logic you list here to be the meta, then there are some very fundamentally wrong game constructs. I actually think that infantry is in practical terms currently indeed the best weapon against tanks. The underlying reason is that tanks aren't strong enough against other tanks. Being a "tank hunter" is just simply not really viable from a current tank vs. tank viewpoint. Just as you insinuate here with your post. THAT's the problem more than anything else. By making tanks stronger vs. other tanks you would not necessarily take away from this "moving pillbox" meta as infantry would still stay the same. Make the tank vs. tank game better ..... Make being a TANK HUNTER actually a viable option and this whole issue improves.

And this is something which I don't know why this is not used in H&G. Balancing of tanks also through the HE shells and their explosive abilities. I think it's a missed opportunity. It would give all tanks more flavor according to their factions. During a balancing pass of tanks I would wish there to more differntiation according to real life abilities. Like tanks which have guns with higher velocity, but smaller calibre have very good AP and APCR but less good HE. And the other way around on tanks with high calibre low velocity guns better HE and less able AP and APCR. For example this would make the IS-2 have the strongest HE of all tanks in game.....!!! ...... Actually the SU would always have the tank type with the best HE with medium tanks, tanks destroyers etc and be the faction with the strongest HE tanks. Why not use this to balance the tanks?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?