Junell

You are absolutely right. What I meant, and should have said was: The winter war happened at the same time as world war two, was a conflict between two states that participated in the war and took place in some of the same areas as the eastern front. It impossible to look at the three Finnish conflicts during the war as unrelated events. They are all related to each other, the war and the eastern front. So does it really matter if the winter war technically was a part of ww2/eastern front/the great patriotic or not? The core question was if it is OK to add the Fedorov or not. Sure it is. Soviet guns used in a armed conflict late 1939 should be added just as easily as the German guns used in armed conflict late 1939.

The winter war and continuation war was absolutely a part of the eastern front.

The gebirgsjäger was lightly armed infantry who liked horses, flowers and long walks in the mountainside. It kind of falls in between inf and recon in this game, so sure, the G33/40 could easily be available for both. No biggie. It could even have the ZF-41 mounted for recons. But that requires more careful balancing of the gun than just excluding all scopes.

On a side note: I want a shotgun as a close range OHK gun for US. Either as a second "assault rifle" in addition to the M1/M2, or simply instead of it. Both SU and GE have other assault rifles that can be added if needed. The Fedorov and MKb 42(H/W) may be the most obvious choices.

It could work to have a very limited OHK range. But that depends if we want it to be a close quarters assault gun or a more general auxiliary gun (for anti tank loadouts). I vote for the latter, but can absolutely live with the first option as well.

M1 Carbine, for US. We already have it in game, just add it to inf. G33/40 and M44 for GE and SU. Use BA stats. Remove possibility to make it OHK or use scopes, give it a tad more sway and make it cost 4 equipment points.

How much, and in what way can the community take part in making this the game we want to play?

Hopefully the skirmish and encounter maps will be more important in the future when staged and war get merged. (Ref. Redbjarne in one of the devstreams.) But right now only a few of the current maps actually get used in war. We need more assault maps. But IMO the thing we need even more than assault maps is new game modes. Both the tank maps and using the existing maps in new ways will add lots of new game play and will help balance the current assaults by giving tankers, pilots and recons a better place to shine than just clusterloving town assaults.

Maybe not on topic, but I think the original suggestion of using the Dodge WC and Krupp Protze is excellent as both can be used as light trucks as well.

Just played a game. Got spawncamped hard.

The current themes are french, mountains and eastern european. Combined those cover the most of the current RTS map nicely. IMO the next theme should be made so we could expand the RTS map to the south: African themed.

The main issue IMO is the lack of dedicated game modes for flying. If we had games for pilots only, there would be less players flying in the normal assault games. Balancing how many pilots that would fight each other would solve itself in a dedicated air vs air game mode. Dedicated and balanced air vs air games is also essential for balancing planes correctly. Also, new game modes would be fun.

I absolutely agree that pilots should get more love than just the assault maps. And the focus should be on making game modes for pilots. Dogfights, bombing factories and intercepting (bot) convoys are all good options. We don't even need new maps to make it work. Any map could be used for dogfights. Factory map could have a bombing game mode. Assault maps could have a game mode where a few pilots have to kill a bot convoy crossing the map. We also need a reason to bomb factories and intercept convoys. One solution could be to add one or two victory points (counts as a capital) that goes to the faction with the most successful bombing and interception missions. IMO that is a better solution than systems directly affecting resource production.

Looking foward to play this update. I expect a lot of tweaking is needed to make the most of this solution. So I hope Reto will focus on making this work, instead of just starting all over again to build yet another system like they usually do. (Yes, I'm looking at you, Squad 2.0.)

Bah. Why did I get the idea that you were talking about the PPD, not the MP-34? I can't remember beeing that drunk. My bad. Anyhow. It is still possible to make the MP-18/28 quite a bit different than the MP-34 by tweaking accuracy, recoil, sway and other soft stats. It is not about adding magical stats, but to make a good gun by adding up the sum of several stats. The ingame variants of the MP-34 and PPS is a good example. The difference in damage and rof, 28.8/500 and 29/545, is not the reason that the MP-34 is crap and the PPS-43 is really good. It is rather the sum of all the other stats as well. However, I am not arguing that the MP-18 should be preferred over the EMP or any other SMG. I am just saying that how the guns perform IRL don't really translate accurately into this game, and it really don't need to either.