• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Arsnicthegreat

  • Rank
    Lieutenant General
  • Birthday February 2

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
  • Soldier
    All types

Recent Profile Visitors

1165 profile views
  1. Honestly 3 bridges is enough, we don't need a bunch of shallow crossings or pontoon bridges. Having only 3 viable crossings (or swimming) might make the flanking route more viable.
  2. As for players that have left, myself semi-included, I'd say it's a combination of the staleness of the RTS and the mediocrity that the FPS has fallen into. Great respect for the Vets that are still toughing it out, but I'm no masochist.
  3. Exactly. If I remember correctly, there's been some talk of making vehicles more durable in the near-ish future, so that would definitely encourage carpooling.
  4. I'd call it more of a necessary disposable, rather than valuable. Terrain vehicles and such are still mostly a device to get to a capture point, dumped outside, and abandoned. I'd rather terrain vehicles would be used less frequently, but used to a greater extent when used. At the moment, it's horribly inefficient, with a bunch of 1-man cars running around.
  5. If you're looking for an image host, I always found Imgur to be sufficient.
  6. Every tom/duck/harry US pilot had a P-38 before the P40 was added. Do you see the issue here? Because it's pretty obvious.
  7. ??? Slap a scope on that thing and say that again. 600 RPM is flawless?
  8. Headshots should be lethal as hell, but the main issue is that the RNGesus hipfire, headshots are too common. Tanks aren't just anti-tank. If that was so, we could just have TDs. The Tanks are indeed a dual-purpose group of vehicles, and should be used against other tanks AND infantry. Engineers should be a separate assault team. Issues with this. So this basically rewards AT rambos? Sounds like a bunch of shirt to me, esp. for how many engineers you suggest. And if you don't have engineers, you're loved. love no. ??? It's WW2, not hunting simulator. Says who? No, because then it'd be Running & Generals. Yeah the iron sights on the kar are miniscule, but you have to get used to it.
  9. I always had nightmares of Bridges of Druzhina. Come to think of it, this image describes that map very well, but with many more bridges.
  10. And this game doesn't exactly follow the IRL timeline. Considering in H&G the Fallschirmjägers are doing perfectly well as airborne infantry, I see no need to try to "emulate" late-war fallschirmjäager deployment as an excuse to get the FG for inf.
  11. The lighting (or lack thereof, as circinus noted himself) results in it not doing a good job of being a greenscreen. Yeah the zooming it sound isn't realistic. I believe the point is to give an auditory cue or smth. Well, he didn't mention it, so that makes me assume otherwise. Would be nice, but not a high priority. Guns don't really sound that different IRL, but I agree that's probably what they did; made a new sound and altered it for the other guns. Of course is a difference, a subtle one at that. Agreed, the GG is much more deep and metallic. *magic* Sounds like it might be a little overkill. I see a lot of accidental deaths in the future.
  12. Definitely. In RO2, tanks are extremely deadly. Accurate MGs, effective HE, and if you're really unlucky, several people voice-chatting in the thing. And of course, infantry cover around the damn things like moths. If not really close, then covering it while they advance, and the tanks return in kind. Tanks make or break a push in RO2, so it's in the best interest for the infantry to help the tank and the tank to help the infantry. Thus, it's extremely hard to get close to a tank. It's much easier to ping at it with an AT rifle, but unless you get a flank on it where you can get a shot on the engine (particularly hard, again, as it's not that simple to get on the flank on account of the infantry), then you're just stopping it where it stands and/or reducing the number of crew. If you can get close enough, then it's relatively easy to one-shot the tank with H3s or RPGs, but again, difficult to get that close. Hell, it's even somewhat difficult to kill a tank by itself if it backs itself up in a nice place. Had a T-34 back into a dead end in Bridges of Druzhina one time. Bugger got the whole route locked down - only guy left on their team at the end of the match. Barely made it past him after several attempts from all of our engineers. Finally managed to toss an H3 over the wall on the outside.
  13. Yeah, hopefully they get around to fixing that in 2020 or something.
  14. The FG 42 was also a really rare weapon - less than 9000 units produced. Look, the only common sense thing to do here is to remove the Johnson from US infantry. The US already has a perfectly capable T2 MG, so why did it even need a second one? And it's even rarer than the FG. So I say that the FG stays para-only and the Johnson becomes a para-only weapon. Not a fan of variety for the sake of variety. Those three weapons could easily all be para-exclusives. I'd rather see them uncommonly in the hands of paras than in the hands of every tom, duck, and harry infantryman if the stats happened to be good.
  15. And magazines could result in different handling as well. The PPSH in general should be more recoil than sway based, by the 71 round mag has a less accommodating grip, so the recoil could be worse than using the stick mag.