Members - Veterans
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Flint74

  • Rank
    Brigadier General
  1. No worries, the U.S. designation code system can get a bit confusing at times.
  2. Used them relatively recently, still an insta-death sentence for the most part. And I've been using the AA-guns since I first started playing this game way back around the time of the 'Patton' update (or possibly just before then, I forget), and aside from lag occasionally getting in the way, I never had any problems shooting aircraft down at all, regardless of their altitude or speed, at least until Reto started fecking about with the overall performance and camera views of the AA-guns and rendered them almost completely unfit for purpose. Even the BAR is a better option then the AA guns in the right scenario. Said it before, I'll say it again, the Soviet Quad Maxim just needs replacing with something a bit more robust in terms of firepower and damage potential.
  3. Using the AA-guns effectively should be mostly about common sense (leading your shots, etc., etc.) anyway, well that and also actually having the ability to quickly and accurately track a potential target because the AA-gun operates somewhat as it would have done IRL (see the real-world weapon performance stats I posted at the top of page 7 of this thread). It also helps if the AA-guns are actually percieved as even a semi-credible threat by the pilots in the first place. Now the common sense part is obviously entirely up to each individual player, hence presumably why so many players apparently struggled using the AA-guns even back before they were nerfed into oblivion, and the planes (and pilots) were increasingly buffed to heaven and back. <Pre-'Adams'> * "I shot at that plane, but it didn't really hit, and it's still flying... and now I'm dead..." ** "Did you lead your shots? Did you aim for Reto's defined key areas of the plane? Do you have any lag?" * "Well, no... I'm not lagging. And the plane was flying kinda low, so I just sorta shot at it..." ** "Welp, there's ya problem then, learn from it and have another go." * "M'kay, will do." <Now> * "I shot at a plane... and now I'm dead... " ** "You used an AA-gun against an enemy plane? Really?" * "Yeah, I thought I'd try and give our team some covering fire..." ** "M'kay, well using the AA-guns is suicide, so maybe don't do it again, ok?" * "Huh, ok I guess." Conversely, the (lack of) performance of the AA-guns themselves, especially the U.S. and German weapons, and the fact they are not taken at all seriously as a potential threat anymore, is all entirely on Reto and their 'statistical data', that and the simple fact that they repeatedly bent over backwards so much to accomodate the Pilots every spoken (and unspoken) desire that it'll presumably take major surgery to get the dev. team standing upright again.
  4. Does this mean you'll be hanging out here on the forum (as and when time allows), and getting involved in at least some of the discussions herein? Because if you're looking for a source of good ideas and suggestions for, and the communities actual thoughts on, this game you're making, this forum is where the vocal, and in some cases quite knowledgable, portion of the community mostly hang out to discuss H&G. This would almost certainly be much better for the future of the game than the existing method of listening to the community, which seemingly mostly involves just guessing what the 'silent majority' (who rarely, if ever, have anything to say about the game) were thinking and wanting by simply doing the exact opposite of whatever was being suggested on here by the actually vocal portion of the community... Will you also be... 'inviting'... the various Community Managers to get more involved in the discussions on here too, because as has been mentioned previously in this thread, some amount of regular two-way interaction with the team on here is something we've been asking for for a very very long time now, and while we appreciate that the team as a whole is often fairly busy, this two-way interaction would be much more preferable and appreciated by the community than having our posts and threads on here randomly tagged as viewed by some, usually unknown, member of staff who then, quite often, doesn't even so much as comment as to what it was they actually liked and disliked about the post/thread. That it does Jean-Marc, that it does, so glad to hear you also think that way about the game. Does this point of view perhaps mean, for example, that you'll be guiding the dev. team to stop bending over backwards to give the Pilot career in-game absolutely everything it asks for, and in some cases also what it doesn't ask for but which the dev. team deems necessary to make the flying game more 'fun', which all usually comes at the expense of the game being 'fun' and 'entertaining' for the rest of the community? Because as it stands the game is increasingly 'not fun' for any of the ground-based careers in particular, simply because of the, in some cases fairly excessive, advantages the Pilots and their aircraft enjoy within the game over everybody else. There was, but he's apparently doing other things now, so the best of luck to him in his new role/position within the Reto team.
  5. Indeed, that does sound an awful lot like the examples The Chieftain described in his video back on page 1 of this thread, where the claims of U.S. and British pilots about numbers of killed and damaged armoured vehicles/tanks could later be demonstrably proven to be fairly radically different from reality.
  6. Reto generally try to stick to the following four basic rules: * Production-built kit (for preference). * Alternatively, kit recieved on loan (e.g. Lend-Lease). * Kit saw some amount of combat for the faction at some point during WWII, in Europe preferably, but otherwise generally regardless of Theatre. * Attempt to place kit in a tech tree slot appropriate for its period correct classification (e.g. Pershing was a heavy tank during WWII and was changed to medium tank only after the war). Of course there are times where Reto haven't entirely stuck to these few rules, the most notable cases of which are: * M2A2 Light Tank - never saw combat, only in-game because Reto needed a U.S. machine gun tankette. And of the few options that were available, of which none saw combat, they chose this one presumably because it was a predecessor of the Stuart light tanks. * M1/M2 Carbine - The in-game name causes some confusion because the 'M1/M2' name doesn't appear to have been used IRL. The weapon saw combat as the M1 Carbine field-upgraded to M2 spec. via an upgrade kit, though presumably the weapon would have simply been re-designated 'M2 Carbine' after the upgrade was applied. * S.T.74 Sticky Grenade - A British designed and produced anti-tank weapon, not used by U.S. forces in combat. * M4A3E2 Sherman IV "Jumbo" - The tank did see combat during the war, but was technically considered an Assault Gun rather than a heavy tank, so strictly speaking not in the correct slot in the U.S. tech tree in-game. Chosen because of its comparatively heavy armour and because the only other suitable heavy tank option was presumably the T26E1-1 (a.k.a. T26E4) Super Pershing, which, if it had been chosen instead of the "Jumbo", would have then required (not inappropriately, it's fair to say) the M26 Pershing to be the U.S. Tier 1 heavy tank in-game. As for the M1941 Johnson Machine Gun (a.k.a. Johnson Automatic Rifle), it was produced in comparatively small numbers for a wartime weapon (barely 10k in total), hence the U.S. Military M-series designation code, it was still used by the U.S. in combat though, predominantly by the Marines and Special Forces units (see rule 3 above). As for the comment about weapons being 'stolen' from the Dutch Government, the only weapon to bear the 'Johnson' name that the Dutch had access to was the 1941 Johnson Semi-Automatic Rifle, which is a completely different weapon to the Machine Gun and isn't even available in H&G, so whether weapons were or were not 'stolen' by U.S. forces during the war is a completely moot point as far as kit in H&G goes. Strictly speaking the 'T26E1' designation was simply the final of many pre-production designations applied to what eventually became the M26 Pershing. The later Super Pershing project was officially designated T26E4, although the one example of the tank that was sent to Germany for testing late in the war is also known (albeit incorrectly, at least according to some sources) for the alternate designation of T26E1-1.
  7. It was a simple canvas-type cover with a clear plastic section that was intended to be used (presumably in, for example, hot/dusty/sandy environments) with the regular armoured drivers hatch open so that the driver could remain covered, but could still see where he was going. It's therefore pretty unlikely the cover and plastic screen was bullet resistant to any degree.
  8. How is it "lefty liberal" to want a thoroughly accurate voting option added to this poll called "All of the above..."? Or do you honestly seriously believe that any one faction in this game is any better or worse then the others when it comes to camping rather than getting stuck into the action? There's a word for that kind of belief, and that word is 'delusional'...
  9. Datasheet for the 37mm armed M38 Wolfhound - http://www.warwheels.net/images/M38armoredCar2DATASHEET.pdf Datasheet for the 75mm armed M38 Wolfhound with Chaffee turret - http://www.warwheels.net/images/M38armoredCar_M24turretDATASHEET.pdf N.B. Deerhound is the British designation for the Ford T17 6x6 vehicle, while the name Staghound was applied to the Chevrolet T17E1 4x4 vehicle. Datasheet for the T17E1 Staghound - http://www.warwheels.net/images/T17E1Staghound1datasheet.pdf Technical Manual for the T17 Deerhound, see page 7 for armour thickness data - http://www.warwheels.net/images/T17armoredCarTechManual.pdf Overall though, given that the Deerhound/Staghound series of vehicles never saw service with the U.S. during the war, and the Wolfhound certainly did, there can really only be one answer to this particular debate, namely: The more lightly armoured M38 Wolfhound would have to be the vehicle that joins the U.S. tech tree in-game, whether it's fitted with the same M6 37mm gun from the Stuart tanks, or the 75mm gun and turret from the Chaffee.
  10. If you weren't hunting Tigers, and were instead going after tanks from the other categories, then I'd say definitely go with the bazooka. But if you're specifically looking to hunt for Tigers in-game, then the H3 is the better bet, even though it's more of a risk 'cause you have to physically run up to each tank, plus it'll almost certainly cost you more in resupply costs and leave you with less of a profit post-battle. That said though, there's that certain delicious irony of using the Germans own anti-tank weapon against them.
  11. The bazooka is probably the cheaper option, but the H3 is effectively guaranteed to get the kill because it eliminates the lottery that are random 'bounces' and/or other non-penetrating hits. No, we're not asking for realistic AA-guns, though it would be nice, we'd just like the AA-guns to be fit for their primary purpose in-game, something which the U.S. and German AA-guns really haven't been since 'Adams', and which the Soviet weapon has never really been. The truth is that even a single active and reasonably well-operated AA-gun should be more than enough to make any pilot sit up and take notice, regardless of their experience level. Unfortunately however, in-game we instead have the situation where not only do pilots absolutely not fear the AA-guns, or give them any amount of due respect, but they will instead actively attack the AA-guns because they know full well that they now have the upper hand in every single engagement entirely because of the combination of plane-sized golden flak jacket, the incomplete aircraft hit-boxes, the planes magical ability to relatively quickly resupply gun ammo and bombs in the air, and the generally hamstrung performance of the AA-guns. So no, it's not all about realism, it's about giving the ground-based careers in-game something they can even semi-rely on to at least deter and/or distract the pilots from their mission to give the rest of us half a chance to enjoy this game once again.
  12. 6 months later, still no fourth voting option, still not posting a vote.
  13. Don't feed the trolls...
  14. To be honest there's barely a justifiable need for having even two tiers of Recon IFV's in-game as it is, so adding a third, even more powerfully armed, tier of such vehicles would mostly just be complete overkill. As for adding tier 1 scouts to the German and U.S. factions, sure, ok, I guess that would give all three factions 2 vehicles each and make everything seem fair and all, but really the big question is, why? Why do we even need multiple tiers of recon IFV's in H&G at all? Why not just leave all of the factions with a single, decent, reasonably powerful, mid-tier, recon vehicle each, i.e. the M8, BA-6 and Sd.Kfz 222? And yes, that would mean removing the BA-64 armoured training shoe from the Soviet tech tree, but aside from being one of the coolest looking vehicles in the game, all it really serves to do is create more demand for more and more 'stuff' that the game doesn't particularly need, and in so doing potentially also provides something of a distraction for the dev. team from the more important of this games long outstanding issues. It's just a thought, your mileage may vary.
  15. This game isn't meant to be a "simulator" though, instead it's simply a WWII-themed combination FPS (First-Person Shooter) and RTS (Real-Time Strategy) game. So the fact we all can't shoot our teammates is simply part of Reto's attempt to reduce the amount of team-damage and team-killing that would otherwise go on in this game.