Members - Veterans
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

455 Excellent


About Flint74

  • Rank
    Brigadier General

Recent Profile Visitors

1273 profile views
  1. Vote for questions for Q&A & Why #9

    The vote count for all of those questions that make it onto the stream are displayed next to their respective question on the monitor behind Gargamel during the stream. The vote count for each answered question is also recorded in the Q&A&Y Answers thread - https://heroesandgenerals.com/forums/topic/79450-qawhy-answers/
  2. No pre-war or war-era medium or heavy bombers are apparently available to the Swiss, but it is possible to complete the Reconnaissance, Fighter, Heavy Fighter, Ground Attack and Para Transport portions of their aircraft tree using the class and tier structure mentioned back in Dev. Stream #86: Reconnaissance: EKW C-35 Fighter 1. Moraine-Saulnier MS.406 (D-3801) 2. North American P-51B 3. Messerschmitt Bf 109G-6 Heavy Fighter 1. Potez 630C.3 2. de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito FB Mk.VI Ground Attack 1. Messerschmitt Bf 109E-1B 2. Potez 632B.2 Paratroop Transport: Junkers Ju 52/3m The Swiss basically didn't have any medium or heavy tanks during the war, actually to be fair they really didn't have all that many light tanks or tank destroyers either, but at least it's possible to fill out all four tiers of the Swiss Light Tank tree, thus: Swiss Light Tanks 1. Vickers Carden Loyd M.1934 2. Stridsvagn L-60 3. Leichter Panzer 35 (Renault R35) 4. Panzerwagen 39 While the TD portion of their tank tree would be incomplete and would look something like: Swiss Tank Destroyers 1. Nahkampfkanone 1 (75mm) 2. 3. Nahkampfkanone 1 (105mm) (this matches up with the proposed tier 3 TD's from the three existing factions - i.e. M36B1, Jagdpanther, SU-100)
  3. Finland: Tech tree

    Which is perhaps a good reason why the British & Commonwealth should have been one of the first factions in the game instead of the U.S. Because that fact, along with the much more diverse and interesting/fun potential B&C tech tree, would have stood this game well apart from all of those other cookie-cutter war games that generally seem to focus much more on the U.S. side of things in terms of Western Allied involvement.
  4. Thank you. Which is why I suggested that instead of asking for the FG42 why not ask Reto for the generally very good StG44 to be reduced to a 6-point weapon by removing it's ability to equip a scope. Such an adjustment then gives the following: U.S. - Johnson LMG - 6 point weapon (as default, max. 7 point with additional ammo. mag) - no scope option Germany - StG44 - 6 point weapon (as default, max. 7 point with additional ammo. mag) - no scope option I explained the most likely reason for the difference in point value for the various LMG's in my previous post so I won't repeat that here, suffice to say that had the Germans seen fit to make a lighter weight more man-portable LMG along the lines of the BAR or Johnson, and had Reto then included such a weapon in-game then it undoubtedly would also have a similar 6-point default value to the American weapons. So as an alternative option to the StG44 suggestion I proposed above, perhaps someone could do a little digging around to see if Germany ever did design a more portable LMG for the mobile role either pre-war or during the war. Also, the idea behind giving the U.S. Paras the M1/M2 to replace the M1 and M1A1 Carbines is that once they have the M1/M2 Carbine they then wouldn't need the Johnson LMG, thus the Johnson could then become an infantry-only weapon, thereby removing that whole point of contention. Thus, presuming the StG44 also gets a 6 point makeover as I suggested, the top tier weapons in each weapon class (per career) then look something like the following: (correct weapon classes shown in brackets) U.S. Infantry - Thompson (SMG) or M2 Carbine (Assault Rifle) or M1941 Johnson (LMG) or M1919 (LMG) U.S. Paras - Thompson (SMG) or M2 Carbine (Assault Rifle) U.S. Tankers - Thompson (SMG) or M1A1 Carbine (Assault Rifle) German Infantry - MP40 (SMG) or StG44 (Assault Rifle) or MG34 (LMG) or MG42 (LMG) German Paras - MP40 (SMG) or FG42 (Battle/Automatic Rifle) German Tankers - MP40 (SMG) Soviet Infantry - PPS-43 (SMG) or AVS-36 (Assault Rifle) or DP-28 (LMG) Soviet Paras - PPS-43 (SMG) Soviet Tankers - PPS-43 (SMG) Once again though, while they may well all share the same basic primary intended role/purpose, the FG42 and StG44 are (or at least they should be, had the FG42 been correctly classified in-game) from the same basic weapon class (i.e. Assault/Battle/Automatic Rifle) while the M1941 Johnson is part of another entirely separate class of weapon (i.e. LMG), so comparing the stats of the FG42 or StG44 with the Johnson is mostly a redundant exercise at best, rather like comparing a Luchs or a T-70 with an Easy 8 for example. Making this weapon comparison is not really your (or anyone else in the community) fault though, as it seems Reto themselves decided, through their use of asymmetrical balance, to counter an Assault Rifle (StG44) with an LMG (Johnson), which was kind of a strange decision on their part when the U.S. already had their own perfectly functional Assault Rifle in-game in the shape of the M1/M2 Carbine.
  5. Vote for questions for Q&A & Why #9

    To be fair to Reto though, it's not them alone that's stopping new, different and interesting questions from being asked on the Q&A&Y streams, because it's the community itself that's repeatedly asking the same tired, boring and frequently asked questions, even though there are multiple ways to view all of the previously asked questions and their respective answers Plus it's also the community alone who are voting for those exact same tired, boring and frequently asked questions on the survey, and instead of filtering those questions out of the way Reto are simply not doing sufficient housekeeping on the survey and thus are allowing those same questions to hit the top of the pile each and every single time. So if there's blame to be had over this whole mess it really should be equally shared between Reto and the members of this community... because we're posting and voting for those questions and Reto are actively letting those questions repeatedly appear on stream.
  6. So the Johnson has better 'other stats' than the MP40 which in turn handles better than the Johnson? Well okay, so what's the point in having a high-powered and reasonably fast-firing weapon that randomly sprays bullets all over the place and only has a very random chance of hitting something useful (the Johnson LMG) when you could instead have some that handles far better and thus allows you to hit/kill your targets more reliably (the MP40)? Also, while the Johnson, MG34 and MG42 are all strictly classed as machine guns, they are all intended for entirely different primary roles, wherein the Johnson is essentially meant for a similar, more mobile, role as the M1918 BAR, i.e. it's a portable (mostly) one-man weapon where the soldier generally carries the weapon and its ammunition himself and operates it on his own while as a part of a squad/platoon/whatever of troops who either have their own similar LMG's or who use other weapons, e.g. SA Rifles, SMG's, etc. Conversely (and in this case I'm talking about the non vehicle-mounted versions of these various weapons) the MG34 and MG42 are both designed primarily along the same lines as the M1919 for example, in as much as they are all generally intended to be carried, operated and maintained by a multi-person group of soldiers, most often from a static position in order to provide field of fire support in defense of a position. That's obviously not to say that the M1919, MG34 and MG42 can't be used by a single soldier in the same mobile/portable manner as the M1918 & Johnson, just that the more mobile role isn't the primary intended purpose of those heavier LMG's. And it's that difference in primary intended role that presumably mostly dictates the equipment point ratings the various LMG's have in-game, and is why the heavier (or normally multi-crewed) LMG's are generally worth 7 points while the 'lighter' and more portable (one-man) LMG's generally default to a 6 point value. N.B. I left the DP-28 out of the above because it kinda falls somewhere in-between those two primary intended roles mentioned. It's also worth noting that the FG42 is mis-classified in-game as an LMG when strictly speaking it was/is actually classified as a Battle Rifle (or Automatic Rifle), which almost certainly should put it in the same class of weapon in-game as the AVS-36, M1/M2 & StG44. I would also dare to suggest that perhaps the same... hypocrisy (for want of a better word)... that surrounds the German factions oft-repeated complaints about the FG42's supposedly poor performance in-game also applies when they talk on here about the supposedly poor performance of the StG44 in-game. Quite simply, the easily observable facts of the matter clearly do not support those claims about the StG44 underperforming in-game, and given that Reto clearly monitors all of the weapons and has been known to adjust weapon performance when their own data has shown that some adjustment is necessary, clearly the StG44 isn't nearly as bad as some people would like to pretend it is. In which case why this supposed Infantry need for the FG42 when the StG44 is clearly just as good, if not better, than the German Paras own weapon? After all, if the German infantry desperately want a high-powered 6-point weapon that isn't an SMG, and they don't particularly care if the weapon in question has a scope option or not because the weapon they're trying to counter itself has no scope option, why not simply ask Reto to make the StG44 a 6-point weapon by removing its ability to equip any kind of a scope? As for the question of why give the M1/M2 Carbine to the U.S. Paras as a replacement for their current M1 and M1A1 Carbines? Because according to many other members of your chosen favourite faction the M1/M2 is so gosh darned unstoppably all powerful, and because I just want the American Paras to have the best chance of having some proper select-fire 'fun' in this game, instead of being forever saddled with some semi-auto piece of nonsense while they have to go up against their FG42-equipped German counterparts.
  7. Boo hoo hoo, oh woe is me, the German factions infantry just don't have any decent top-tier guns to fight with, apart from the insanely good MP40, StG44, MG34 and MG42 that is, so they desperately need the very same FG42 that for the longest time the factions members spent trashing here on the forum as being rubbish... So the question is, if the FG42 is as bad as some of you claimed it is/was surely the last thing you'd want to do is inflict that gun on your infantry? Or were the claims of its poor performance simply an attempt to try and decieve Reto in a failed attempt to get an already decently performing weapon buffed for no reason? Also, if the German infantry do ever get the FG42, then at the same moment the U.S. paras should be given the select-fire M1/M2 Carbine to replace the god awful semi-auto M1 & M1A1 Carbines they've been saddled with.
  8. This is just plain legit bias

    Hold on a sec... The U.S. paras get to use the Johnson LMG in-game? If they can carry the rather large and comparatively weighty Johnson LMG in-game with no problem at all, why the heck were they only given the semi-auto M1 Carbine and, more importantly, the folding stock semi-auto M1A1 Carbine back in the day by Reto on the basis that the M2 (i.e. the M1/M2) Carbine was apparently too much for them? If it'll clear up this pointless topic once and for all, take the Johnson LMG and the M1 & M1A1 Carbines away from the U.S. Paras and allow them to use the M2 (i.e. M1/M2) Carbine as their top tier assault weapon instead. And at the same time make sure the U.S. tankers can use both the M1 & M1A1 Carbines rather than just the folding stock M1A1 variant alone. Because some tank crews were actually equipped with the full size M1 Carbine as their personal/crew defence weapon. This then means that as far as top tier weapons go: U.S. Infantry - M2 Carbine or M1919 or Johnson LMG U.S. Paras - Thompson SMG or M2 Carbine U.S. Tankers - Thompson SMG or M1 Carbine or M1A1 Carbine German Infantry - StG44 or MG34 or MG42 German Paras - MP40 or FG42 German Tankers - MP40 Soviet Infantry - AVS-36 or DP-28 Soviet Paras - PPS-43 Soviet Tankers - PPS-43
  9. Temporary solution for snow maps

    Or maybe something like this...
  10. Vote for questions for Q&A & Why #9

    Or maybe they could just go back through the previous surveys and pick out those questions with low vote counts that have not yet been answered and do a stream (or two) just on those...
  11. Finland: Tech tree

    Happy 100th Finland.
  12. Vote for questions for Q&A & Why #9

    Which is more or less what I suggested over in the initial news thread for Q&A&Y9, that the survey be edited prior to voting actually starting so that only those questions that haven't already been repeatedly flogged to death multiple times in the previous streams can be voted on by us.. in that way each new Q&A&Y stream doesn't simply become a carbon copy of the previous ones with all of the same tired old questions constantly being asked over and over and over again... I mean it's clearly not fun for us, especially when we see our own interesting and original questions going unanswered due to a lack of votes, and while it probably makes their lives easier I imagine it can't be hugely fun for Gargamel and RedBjarne to keep answering the same carppy community questions each time. I am? Gods help me...
  13. Punishment/Banning by IP = reasonably high potential for false positives and incorrectly punished/banned players because of a shared IP address, also almost all domestic ISP's use dynamic IP ranges for their customers, so banning an IP address for one player could inadvertantly affect someone completely different (and innocent) even later the same day - thus IP-based flagging/punishments are not an ideal solution. Flagging players who leave matches early = maybe some players have carp internet and/or have temporary internet issues that cause random disconnections, or maybe a player is just very busy IRL and often has to leave a battle in progress to do more important things - very hard to prove intent with this, punishing players for things beyond their control is not an ideal solution either. Similarly for players who seem to crash their vehicles a lot, dodgy/generally poor internet connectivity can cause problems for players, particularly when trying to control fast moving vehicles in-game, thus intent is very hard to discern, therefore it's not exactly fair to flag/punish/ban players because e.g. they might be connecting to a server in Holland from their PC in Australia. Other players maybe just struggle to control vehicles (aircraft in particular) with keyboard & mouse, despite their best efforts, and with the only way to learn being to repeatedly use the vehicles in battle until you get the hang of things, it's kinda hard to do that if you're going to be constantly flagged/punished for repeatedly crashing your vehicle(s). As well as high ping, low FPS can also cause problems for players, i.e. if their PC's are not quite up to spec. and running on reduced graphics settings in-game only marginally improves things. Indeed, get a combination of high ping and low FPS in a battle and that's like a double whammy of bad gaming experience right there.
  14. Poland Faction

    Polish faction thread -
  15. cheater

    Watch this -