Members - Veterans
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

536 Excellent


About Flint74

  • Rank
    Brigadier General

Recent Profile Visitors

1580 profile views
  1. The music you're listening to - Post it here!

    Postmodern Jukebox
  2. Here's the relevant video clip from Q&A&Y #12 that @Kmeto mentioned in his post above.
  3. No New Interesting Threads

    I will agree with most of what you say there Oddball, however I would also point out that it's Nordisk Film Games, and not Nordisk Film, that invested all that money in Reto-Moto. And yes there is a difference between the two, albeit perhaps a subtle one. NFG have been around now for nearly two years (they started up in 2016) exclusively to act as the gaming division of Nordisk Film. Apparently NFG's purpose is to invest money in, and help support, Scandinavian games developers/studios who are trying to reach a global audience with their games. It seems NFG's senior partner, Martin Walfisz, has some 20 years of experience in the games industry. https://www.nordiskfilmgames.com/ I guess the big question is though, will Reto actually listen to the expert(s) from NFG any more than Reto currently listens to their own community? If they do then just maybe this whole project has some kind of a fighting chance, providing the guys at NFG actually steer Reto in the right direction. If Reto don't listen however, and they instead decide to continue following their own path regardless of whatever advice, suggestions, and criticism, they may receive then this project is basically as good as done for.
  4. No New Interesting Threads

    Kinda depends who you are though, Circinus is a good guy and all that, but it just seems like he'll generally only reply to certain people and/or certain topics, and if you ever make it onto his s**tlist then basically...
  5. John Deere Model "A" Armored Tractor

    Greetings from Poland
  6. Scope magnification reduction, when?

    Except, for the recons sniping already is mostly a secondary/opportunistic duty chiefly because Reto gave the role to the infantry without bothering to give the recons anything else to do in the meantime, apart that is from tooling around the maps in their armoured cars... But no, let's have even more scoped weapons in-game, because that's just what this game surely needs in order to stop all the community complaints about there being too many scoped weapons being used in-game... oh wait... Might as well do a deal with Rebellion and rename this game to Sniper Elite 5:Glasnost edition.
  7. [Forum Game] Ban the User Above You

    Banned for trying to stop people from having fun on the forum.
  8. Scope magnification reduction, when?

    Giving recon players a couple of unique hats, a scarf and a pair of anti-dust/glare goggles is not going to help though. Maybe sorting out the whole oft-suggested breathing mechanic might be somewhat useful, as would adjusting the sway and conefire mechanics, but seeing as how Reto are still stubbornly not listening to the community by even temporarily removing the infantry scopes for a period of time (e.g. 1 or 2 months) as a proper experiment (not just because of an unplanned bug in the game), the real way to make the recon career a more popular option would be to actually finally give them some fun, practical, and definitive, roles in-game to replace the sniper role Reto effectively gave to the infantry class, as well as making the whole recon career either slightly cheaper and/or slightly more rewarding, not only to get into in the first place, but also to stick with long term. In that way hopefully some of the infantry tree fairies among us will be tempted to switch to the recon class which means they'll keep their scoped weapons, and the rest of us then won't constantly have to shout at them to actually get involved in the fighting because they want to do nothing more than sit in a bush all day long and grind their ribbons and farm their credits at everyone elses expense. It's funny you should say that, because I just realised what this seemingly endless debate about infantry scopes reminds me of... that whole (still ongoing) argument on here about planes vs. ground troops, and how because the pilot career has been given, and unfortunately mostly still has, literally everything it needs to have 'fun' in-game, it's no longer very much 'fun' to play the game for anyone in the ground-based careers, all because the pilots still have almost total control over the gameplay in every battle they take part in. In fact it's almost as if Retos development plan has either inadvertently, or perhaps even deliberately, built a kind of hierarchy into the FPS game in terms of which groups get to have more 'fun' at other players expense, e.g. TOP * Pilots (of Medium & Heavy fighters) * Infantry snipers (i.e. scoped weapon infantry) * Paras * Recon Pilots * Recons * Tankers (of all classes & tiers) * Infantry (i.e. unscoped weapon infantry) BOTTOM N.B. This is not suggesting by the way that all careers should be treated equally and be given some 'easy-mode' counter to those in a higher group on the ladder, rather it's simply an observation that constantly focusing on one particular group at a time without bothering for even a second to consider the impact any changes made to that group will have on the groups above and below it on that hierarchical ladder is nothing more than a guaranteed sure-fire way to screw up the game and make sections of the community walk away, mostly in complete disgust. This much is pretty clearly evidenced in the (in some cases) heavily reduced player numbers both in-game and on the forum at all times of the day compared to even a couple of years ago, and yet Reto still don't seem to have fully grasped this very simple fundamental concept, instead choosing to blithely carry on regardless in the hope that it'll all work out for the best in the long run. And I do hope they're right in the end, and this project does bear plentiful quality fruit for everyone (staff & players alike) at the end of the day, because quite honestly, despite recent steps like 'Glasnost', the signs generally do not look that good (at least from a community perspective) at this point in time.
  9. Scope magnification reduction, when?

    fixed that for you... Also, a helpful little video y'all at Reto-Moto should probably take the time to watch and learn from... because it's good life advice and shows that nobody's perfect.
  10. Scope magnification reduction, when?

    What part of "remove all infantry scopes" sounds to you and the rest of Reto-Moto like the community want EVEN MORE infantry scopes added to the game though? Just how many community threads asking for the removal of infantry scopes does there have to be before y'all realise that just maybe a sizeable portion of the remaining active community don't like or want the infantry scopes in-game, because just maybe we're a little bit fed up at this point of seeing half or more of our teams in battle rush off to the nearest bush or tree to farm points and credits and grind their ribbons and badges with their scoped rifle rather than actually actively helping their team. Or are you guys really just all out to troll this community or something, because GGWP, y'all done did it. I mean seriously though, I realise you guys don't like removing any of the 'stuff' you've added into the game, and that's totally fair enough and understandable (to a reasonable degree) given the time, money and manpower put into implementing new 'stuff' in-game, but enough is enough already, infantry scopes are nothing more than an obnoxious, but thoroughly treatable, cancer on this game, that never ever should have been added in the first place, mostly because they were completely unnecessary, despite what the clearly flawed data analysis might have suggested to the contrary back in the day, but also because nobody in the community particularly even asked for the infantry scopes way back in the past because the zoomable iron sights at that time were generally more than sufficient for most infantry players needs. And it's not just the infantry scopes either, because there's the whole knock-on effect this all had on the Recon class, who are still patiently waiting after all this time for you guys to finally deliver some new alternative roles to take up from the effective loss of their sniper role, which, whether you originally intended them to have that role or not, was actually a perfect role for that class in-game, because it meant that while there was a sniper element in-game, it wasn't so widely prevalent that it became a de facto gameplay standard for the overwhelming majority of players still playing H&G. And even beyond the scopes and the recons, there are all of the other little gameplay issues that keep being mentioned and questioned and discussed in the various dev. and Q&A streams, which when you stop and consider some of them even for a moment, anyone with half a brain would (and indeed should) quickly realise that the simple solution for some of those seemingly unrelated issues would be to simply entirely remove the infantry scopes from the game... So in the spirit of the current Glasnost, why don't y'all just do the community, and this apparently slowing dying game, a big fat favour and actually realise that "remove all infantry scopes" really does mean exactly that, instead of stubbornly doing the exact opposite.
  11. The British military deliberately didn't want SA Rifles (e.g. the M1 Garand) for their troops mostly because they perceived such rifles to be a potential waste of ammunition (yes, really), though this opinion gradually changed as the use of SMG's and other (semi-)automatic weapons became increasingly prevalent in combat over time. Additionally, because they already had the very excellent Lee Enfield BA rifles, which were proven time and again to be more than a match in the right hands for just about any SA rifle in use at that time, it was generally considered to be somewhat redundant, and indeed rather wasteful, to replace those perfectly good Lee Enfield rifles with something that maybe only worked just about as well as, or perhaps worse than, the weapons for which they might be considered to replace. In terms of H&G though, providing Reto do decent justice to both rifles, having the Lee Enfield No.1 Mk.III as the factions starter rifle, with the No.4 Mk.I being an upgrade (or tier 2) option, that should be a perfectly good alternative to the traditional BA/SA rifle options of the existing factions. It's worth noting that there is a specific historically accurate scope option available for both rifles (being the Pattern 1918 3x scope for the No.1 Mk.III rifle , and a No.32 Mk.I 3.5x scope for the No.4 Mk.I). As for the Jungle Carbine, (Rifle No.5 Mk.I), that was intended to be an airborne troop weapon, so perhaps it could also be included in-game as an exclusive British Para weapon. It's worth also keeping in mind that a combined British & Commonwealth faction absolutely does not have to rely on having any Lend Lease kit in its tech tree whatsoever, because aside from the lack of an SA rifle, which is clearly a non-issue anyway, it's completely possible for the rest of the factions tech tree to be properly equipped with a mix of kit from Britain and some of the Commonwealth nations.
  12. II Polish Corps

    Made the following changes to the tech tree on page 1 of this thread: 1: Removed the Cromwell from medium tank tier 2. 2: Moved the 25TP prototype from heavy tank tier 1 to medium tank tier 2 (the tank was variously classified as either a medium or a heavy tank, but it was similar in a lot of respects to the Cromwell previously included on the tech tree, e.g. by weight, main gun caliber, etc.) 3: Moved the Churchill VIII from heavy tank tier 2 to tier 1. 4: Added the IS-2 model 1944 as the new tier 2 heavy tank, included a brief description with the tanks photo. 5: Updated the national breakdown at the top of the tank section of the tech tree. 6: Added a brief description for the Kubuś APC.
  13. Finland: Tech tree

    The SU-152 & ISU-152 are both essentially Howitzer TD's/Assault guns, so strictly speaking neither of them belong in the Heavy tank class in-game. Also the 152mm gun on either of those tanks would be total overkill for H&G in any tank class, this is primarily why the future tier 3 Soviet TD that Reto apparently have in mind is the SU-100, because that's still a powerful tank, and a clear upgrade from the tier 2 TD, but it's also not completely insanely overpowered in terms of gun performance. The Finnish tanks, like the BT-42, might be somewhat interesting from a tank enthusiasts point of view, but from a general gameplay perspective it really wouldn't do a future Finnish faction any favours if their tank tree was left comparatively underpowered compared to the other factions. Indeed I'd have to say the same thing also applies to the Finnish planes as well. So yes, of course it'd be nice to include more uniquely Finnish designed/built/altered tanks and planes in-game, and certainly when I put those Finnish plane and tank trees together all those months ago now I did look at the homegrown Finnish options for both categories in case there was anything useful there, but for this faction I think it's really not worth going down that route if it'll only end up leaving the pilots and tankers in the faction feeling rather uncompetitive. On the plus side, by using a lot of the existing vehicles it potentially makes the Finnish faction that much easier to implement in-game, because all it'll then require is a bunch of new vehicle camos and markings to be drawn up by the graphics team.
  14. Finland: Tech tree

    First of all, the BT-42 is hugely overrated, in truth it's really not worth the time needed to model the thing for H&G because it barely had the firepower to even punch its way out of a paper bag, plus it was so top heavy and unstable when travelling over anything beyond perfectly flat ground that it was more of a danger to itself and its own crew than to any enemy tanks. The meme of 'light tank with really big gun' doesn't always guarantee success. It's worth also noting that the BT-42 was, strictly speaking, an assault gun rather than a light tank, so if it were to be included in-game it would have to sit in the TD class (probably as the tier 1). Also, the so-called T-34/Pak40 was an unsuccessful one-off experiment by the Finns to replace the 85mm gun on a T-34/85 with the German 75mm Pak40 gun, all because the Finns had a shortage of shells for the larger caliber Soviet gun. But considering the Finns had access to both the T-34/76 AND the Pz.IV Ausf.J anyway, it seems kinda redundant to include a failed one-off experiment on the Finns tank tree as the mid-tier Medium. The T-26 and T-26E were both developments of the Vickers 6-ton light tank, thus opting for the British tank at Light tier 2 over either Soviet tank is kind of a redundant, and indeed a slightly backwards, step. The KV-1B and KV-1E are effectively the same tank, KV-1B is in fact the Finnish designation for the KV-1E model 1940. The only other KV-1 the Finns got their hands on and later used during the war was a KV-1A (the Finnish designation for the KV-1 model 1942). The KV-1B was fitted with applique armour and a 76mm L/31.5 F-32 main gun, the later KV-1A was fitted with even more armour protection and used a longer 76mm L/41.6 ZiS-5 main gun. As far as planes go, maybe check out the following fairly comprehensive document - https://www.dropbox.com/s/mv4ju3io36cfqa6/FinnishPlanes.pdf