Members - Veterans
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

374 Excellent


About Flint74

  • Rank
    Brigadier General

Recent Profile Visitors

1057 profile views
  1. who had the idea?

    No problem, you're welcome.
  2. Make the M29 Weasel great again

    And once again some people have apparently completely failed to grasp the issue with this vehicle by yet again fixating on it's swimming speed... so let me try to explain this one more time. This issue is generally NOT about the Weasels swimming speed, in fact that low swimming speed is actually a fairly understandable gameplay trade off for its ability to both swim and carry two crates as well as multiple passengers, it's actually also a pretty reasonable emulation of the vehicles in-water performance in the real world where, because it floated so low in the water, it was fairly critical to move comparatively slowly lest the vehicle take on water and immediately sink. Rather, this whole thing is almost entirely about the ability to even get the vehicle safely and reliably into water in a useable condition, which is currently a bit of a problem for a majority of the owners of the vehicle in-game precisely because it's safe WATER ENTRY SPEED RANGE, i.e. the speed range within which a Weasel in-game can safely transition from land into water and remain floating, is simply far too small and slow compared to it's 'normal' or average speed on land. And it's that massive difference in the high land and very low water entry speeds, coupled with the usual kinds of sloped terrain found alongside most bodies of water in-game, that can then make it rather difficult to slow the vehicle down sufficiently, and in plenty of time, so that the Weasel gets safely into a body of water while also not making the vehicle even more of a defenceless and thoroughly open target on land. So no, we're not particularly asking for the Weasels swimming speed to be increased, but instead the top end of it's safe water entry speed range should be increased, even a small amount, to make it a little easier to reliably get the Weasel into water in a floating, and actually usable, condition.
  3. Totally gonna bulletpoint the heck out of this wall for ease of reference, and I'll even answer the bulletpoints for sh*t's and giggles: * German faction - mostly masochistic hyper-nationalists. -- Sounds about right, or else the U.S. and S.U. wouldn't still be getting their underdog bonus after all this time... * RTS gamemode is a joke. -- The phrase you're probably looking for is "ambitious at best". * The game prioritises the enjoyment of Pilots over other careers. -- Totally couldn't agree more with this. * U.S. & S.U. get better equipment and better "economics" (i.e. more credits/warfunds/underdog bonus/everything/etc.). -- The only thing the U.S. and S.U. get that's "better" than the Germans is the underdog bonus; everything else on the subject of who has what better kit is simply every individual persons own personal opinion, thus it's a mostly unresolveable debate and so it's not really worth worrying about because nothing will ever really change, apart from the underdog bonus that is, the removal of which requires only some of the regular German faction to spend some quality time playing for the Americans or Soviets. * German equipment constantly made worse by Reto. -- Aside from the Flakvierling38, which in-game is but a pale shadow of the weapon it apparently was IRL, most German kit in-game actually appears to function at least perfectly reasonably if not better, otherwise, apart from the whole masochistic hyper-nationalist thing, why else would a bunch of supposedly sensible people continue to fight for a faction that according to some of them has the worst kit in-game? the noral rule of thumb is 'If something's sh*t, stop using it and try something else instead...' * German camos are both the worst and most expensive. -- German camos are most certainly not the worst performing camos in-game, not even close, but I completely agree that their hyper-extreme cost, across the board, is nothing short of utterly ridiculous. * Germany needs more Capitals at war start so they can perform more like they did IRL. -- IRL? Remind me again how the war went for Germany IRL...? Oh that's right, they started in Berlin, quickly expanded to cover most of Eastern AND Western Europe, made fairly decent in-roads into Africa, and the Pacific (through their support of Japan), and then threw it all away because their leader gradually took complete leave of his senses after being blown up by one of his own. * Isn't exclusively a German faction player, has tried all 3 sides, currently playing for S.U. -- Pleased to hear you've given all three factions a decent go, that's more than a lot of players of this game do. So good on ya. * Better weapons and "economics" are no basis for populating all factions more equally. * Stop playing Germany to show Reto they are wrong about the games development. -- This is not a practical solution though, because people will always choose to play for the German faction no matter how many people support your idea to protest in this manner. So other than telling all of the German faction to stop playing for their beloved faction entirely as some kind of ultimately doomed to fail protest, how else do you suggest Reto try to encourage more players to play for the U.S. and S.U. in order to better balance the faction sizes at the start of each war and thus help facilitate the removal of the underdog bonus once and for all? Hope this helps.
  4. who had the idea?

    @sfscriv This seemed like a good place to leave this link to your thread that discusses the campaign map and RTS gamemode...
  5. I was more talking about the forums in general Jacky, where, far too often, duplicate threads are made on here either because people either can't be bothered to spend 30 seconds using the search function to find an existing thread for their chosen topic, or perhaps simply do not know how to use the search function in the first place. A good case in point being the semi-regular posting of new duplicate threads talking about/suggesting one of the many future factions already on the list at the top of this thread, and while I and others on here certainly do our best to try and point those players towards the main faction threads on the list, that doesn't always work and so those posts, which may actually contain some new and/or interesting details, may end up getting lost in amongst the constantly shifting topics on the forum boards. And it's for that kind of thing, amongst many other perfectly relevant situations, where the use of thread merging should be operating on here on a regular basis, to combine all of that useful detail on a topic together in one thread to stop it simply being lost. And yes, of course there are always going to be exceptions to the rule(s), that's completely understandable, so as far as the token threads go, if you, SK1MER and GermanSoldier really have somehow all made uniquely different threads on the very same topic, and at the very same time too (more or less), then that's totally fair enough, and if the forum staff feel those threads are all sufficiently different enough that they don't particularly need to be merged then that's absolutely fine too.
  6. You have to keep in mind that the 90/53 is technically classified as a tank destroyer and thus is equipped with an actual anti-tank gun, while the 105/25 is, strictly speaking, classified as a self propelled gun (i.e. assault gun or mobile artillery) that makes use of a howitzer as its primary weapon. Thus the 90/53's 90mm gun should be a decent match at tier 2 for the 75-85mm guns of the existing factions Tier 2 TD's. While the 105mm howitzer used in the 105/25 should provide a fairly reasonable counter to the 88-100mm guns for those commonly suggested future Tier 3 TD's.
  7. But are we surprised by that? Unfortunately no, of course we're not, because we know that it wouldn't occur to most people in the community to simply comment in an existing active thread, when they can get a much more personal response to their comment(s) by making their own duplicate thread... If only we had some trusted people on the forum who could merge threads like that... and who weren't afraid to use those powers a bit more often. Then, just maybe, we wouldn't need the housekeeping rules deleting stuff off the forum after so many months of inactivity, because most of it likely would be merged together into still active mega-threads.
  8. Your most welcome. As far as thread merging goes, sometime way back on Forum 1.0, I believe it was briefly suggested by someone on here that if the forum staff and/or Reto didn't have the spare time to handle it, then maybe a trusted and long-time member of the community itself could be given the permissions to go through even just the General Feedback board (currently 980 pages) and General Suggestions board (currently 111 pages) and merge all of the old related/duplicated threads together into a number of mega-threads. And obviously we have 2-3 separate lists posted in various places across the forum of the most commonly used/useful threads, e.g. the faction threads on the list above, but even if those most commonly used threads were skipped and everything else was merged based on their topic, that should still effectively reduce both of those two boards from hundreds of pages long down to perhaps tens of pages at most. The real trick would of course be to find someone just masochistic enough to volunteer to carefully wade through 1000+ pages of all of the old threads not on the commonly used thread lists and then combine them based on topic.
  9. That is kinda stretching things a little bit though, I mean while something like the M2A2 didn't particularly see combat and was mostly just used as a kind of training tank, at least the U.S. still had the option to actively use it in battle if push really came to shove; whereas the Italians only being trained in use of the Tiger 1 but not actually given any to use in combat is not really the same as them having any examples of the Tiger available to use but then deliberately choosing not to use them. But I guess, as with so many things in this game, we can really only wait and see what Reto decide to do with the Italian factions tanks, presuming we even get an Italian faction, or indeed any new factions at all, at some future point in time.
  10. That would of course be your own personal opinion, to which you're naturally completely entitled. However, as we know, Reto (mostly/generally) only work with official war-era classifications, which means the Tier 1 Italian Heavy tank would be the P26/40. Of course if by some miracle they agreed with you and decided to classify the P26/40 as a Medium tank before including it in-game then that decision would effectively leave the Italian faction with no Heavy tanks to call upon whatsoever, presuming they also decided to stick to their guns about not using any prototypes in-game, even reasonable ones like the P34/43 bis.
  11. Looking For a Thread? Topic Guide

    @BroskyBro Found these three interesting threads that don't seem to be on the list on page 1, maybe these would be a good addition? https://heroesandgenerals.com/forums/topic/65329-us-weapon-suggestions/ https://heroesandgenerals.com/forums/topic/65760-german-weapon-suggestions/ https://heroesandgenerals.com/forums/topic/65843-soviet-weapon-suggestions/
  12. @sfscriv The reason why both Italy threads were never merged is simply because the current thread is purely an attempt by GeorgePatton98 to update, tidy up, and build upon, all of the fairly extensive information that Warff had been working to gather over the 18 pages that made up his own original thread, this is because Warff felt he no longer had the free time to monitor and maintain the original thread and his original post, and also because it simply wasn't possible to give GeorgePatton98 the necessary permissions or access to edit and maintain Warffs original post. As for including both threads on the list above, that was entirely my own choice when I compiled that list of faction threads, because while it isn't active anymore Warffs original Italy thread does still have 18 pages of suggestions and interesting discussion on the subject of an Italian faction, and I felt it'd be a fairly big mistake not to save all of that detail, assuming that a faction sub-forum (that I also asked Hades about) might be a possibility. You can see where I compiled the faction list, and asked Hades about the idea of a faction sub-forum, over on the British faction thread.
  13. [Soviet] Weapon Suggestions

    Considering the Soviet tech tree in particular starts (in terms of production year) from about 1895 or there abouts, that's quite surprising for them to say something like that...
  14. Well then here's a novel concept for you, maybe don't keep posting your exceptional scores here on the forum for all to see wherein it causes some players to continually call you out for constantly bragging, which then causes you to feel like you have to sit there trying to defend the pilot/plane imbalance at all costs. And yes, of course, it's always nice to see when players do well in a video game, but if you don't want all this negative attention, stop fueling the fire, at least until Reto has looked into the imbalance and made a decision about it one way or the other, otherwise it just makes you look like a troll.
  15. Suggestion - please devs read

    Well then it's a good thing that the original character deployment system was entirely their own idea, that they deliberately chose to reinvent the wheel (again) by throwing that working system away for the abomination that was the Aux. Seat system is also entirely on them too... Thus the very least they could do is to at least consider the option to bring the old deploy system back albeit integrated into the Squad system, thereby giving everyone the best of both worlds.