Members - Veterans
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Bawse

  • Rank
    Private First Class

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
  • Soldier
    All types

Recent Profile Visitors

1,057 profile views
  1. Why is it that when we want to move our ATs or refill/repair that there's always that nasty Battle Report Pop-Up that obstructs us from moving out our Assault Teams or something else important that we may need to do? Can't we have at least the option to have it be a passive notification instead of having it aggressively thrown in our faces? I feel like sometimes the mix of the Battle Report and the RTS updating also causes the game to bottleneck and crash, which frustrates us Generals even more than necessary. And whenever we unlock something or earn a badge, can that also be a passive notification too? I know when I buy a new soldier I get about a dozen pop-ups of things that further obstructs me from getting back into the game. I know this seems like a short and even pointless post to some, but there are many of us who would greatly appreciate this small change, especially the Generals.
  2. I agree somewhat with what you have said. It's true many battles might be lost because someone wasn't "generous" enough. Hoarding ATs would have a drain on resources and make for a bigger queue than without the mechanic... The Alts continue to make that a huge problem for every faction in the game without the Locking mechanic already, so until THAT issue is TRULY resolved, then this idea of mine will probably not work. That being said, having Locked ATs would help immensely with keeping randoms from playing out and killing off the planes and tanks of people who can't afford to deploy or reinforce again. I'm a very small-time general, currently with 12 ATs, so when my ATs get wasted, I can't just brush off the loss like many of the whales in this game. The fact that I deployed my planes into a match where, like I said, I could've only lost 3-4 planes in total, yet I ended up losing my entire plane AT simply because 6-7 randoms needed their bonuses is completely unacceptable. To prevent this kind of frustration from happening to me - and probably a lot of other Generals - again is my main goal. I also tried to suggest adding the incentive of some kind of warfund bonus for those who actually keep them unlocked in battles to make it easier for Vets and Non-Vets alike to earn a little more. I think that I should clarify though that this SHOULD NOT apply to Infantry ATs; locking all of those out would most likey result in a war-loss, since everyone wouldn't want to "lose everything they worked so hard for" like some salty rank 12 with his 1-2 guards. Also, you don't always need "Special ATs" to win a battle. This has been proven time and time again in war by countless clans and randoms. In fact, I believe most war battles are LOST because randoms always queue up for Special Classes. How many war battles in a day do you see some rank 6-7 with his Tier 1 Starter Tank trying to earn extra rewards to rank up faster, only to get an entire Tank AT destroyed in the process. By having the ATs locked, this would prevent this kind of thing from happening again. Also, if the resources were used by Alts to help the enemy farm Warfunds, Reto can see whose ATs those were, and therefore ban them from the current War, or all wars if it gets bad enough, for Alting. And sure, some Noob Generals will lock their own ATs and waste them all anyways, not because they want to help the enemy, but because they do not know how to use them. Either that, or like I stated before, they will just deploy and most likely never use them for the entirety of the War. For that, having a time-limit on how long a general can keep their ATs inactive before having them forced back into the stockpile would be a great way to curb that, while also blacklisting [Alt[ accounts that consistently deploy and keep ATs inactive. Regardless, there does need to be an effective way of teaching or dealing with Noob Generals, because they aren't being intentionally malicious, but they aren't helping in the war effort either. Unfortunately, there is no "quick-fix" solution that I can think of in that case, because it's hard enough to teach new players how to do anything in this game when there aren't proper, official, developer-made tutorials to help them in the first place. Hopefully something can be done about all of this, because at the end of the day, it's the fact that we keep losing ATs through noobs and alts that ultimately turn several generals away from this game to begin with. This is one of the core issues that has been an outcry from the RTS community for YEARS. Sure, Alting does seem to be one of the underlying issues that comes with the territory, and can arguably be a bigger issue than having randoms bleed out one's resources unnecessarily. Either way, there is a lot wrong with the RTS, I just want it to be a bit more playable and less broken through a simple, possibly easy to implement mechanic like "Locking," since it takes forever for anything to become TRULY fixed in this game.
  3. Bawse

    Some Simple RTS Suggestions

    All great ideas, though the 3 suggestions in the 1st category have been suggested before. I too believe a waypoint system would be a great idea as well. Sometimes I have to go afk for a multitude of reasons and want to ensure my ATs don't magically hit a contested town and get encircled. I don't know if Reto's engine would allow that though, as their servers still need a drastic overhaul. Regardless +1 for you Ace.
  4. For those of you who play the RTS on a regular basis, many of you know what it feels like to have random noobs use up your ATs and not turn a profit for each battle they play in. I am so tired of having randoms waste my planes, tanks, and paratroopers and ultimately lose battles because these randoms are taking advantage of the extra XP, WFs, and Credits earned in War Battles. My clan was defending around the Kiev area a few minutes ago, where one of our towns started, even though we literally outnumbered the Soviets 20k v 1k infantry among a bunch of other ATs. The battle started, we were getting creamed by Para and APC spam. I added my planes in. Me and a clanmate used up 3 planes between the two of us. Then suddenly, we have 8 pilots in the air at once. Noobs not knowing how to bomb, or avoid AA and PTRDs, or avoid Tanks and BA-6s... I ended up losing my entire plane AT in that match alone. What's worse? I ended up LOSING 12k warfunds simply because there were too many people using up my planes and not knowing how to fly. Don't get me wrong, that was just one isolated incident, but this was the last straw for me, and it has, therefore, made me write this post. This kind of frustration happens consistently in the War. ATs are being used by random players who don't know how to use them, and only deploy them for the potential bonuses War offers, even though they only get 2 kills and 17 deaths on average. Now I know that functional, detailed, and truly helpful tutorials aren't the priority at the moment, so I figured a new, and highly necessary mechanic should be implemented instead. I think that having a system that only allows certain players to use "special ATs" (Tanks, Planes, Paras, possibly Recon as well) should be added into the game. Having ATs "locked" to only allow certain players play your ATs will drastically affect the way the war battles are played out. Locked ATs can only be used by people you allow to play them, such as only the people in YOUR squad can use YOUR planes or tanks. That way, you can relax in the knowledge that you won't have randoms constantly crashing into trees or drowning in rivers anymore. With that in mind, many Generals will probably opt to lock ALL of their ATs, which means nothing gets played and never used, which means longer queue times for resources, and potentially losing wars more quickly and unfairly. Therefore, an incentive should be made for keeping ATs "unlocked." Leaving your ATs unlocked can give you a generosity bonus of around 10%-25% more Warfunds for allowing your entire faction to have the ability to use your ATs. That way, you can earn more Warfunds by Fighting For Friends™ and thus makes the non-vets feel like they've actually earned something each war. Now I'm not saying that this is a perfect suggestion, or that it is completely thought out. And sure, there's a lot more potential to this idea, and lots of other ideas can branch out from this. All I want is to prevent randoms and noobs from using my resources, when I know I could easily turn a profit with them in my own squad of capable and competent players. Sending in planes and tanks only to have them be wasted in a matter of minutes shouldn't be an "acceptable risk," nor should it be something we as Generals should have to "deal with" if and when things like this happen. Feel free to add to this or support this if you agree, because I know that these kinds of suggestions have been made before, but have either gone unheard, have been rejected, or have simply been forgotten after years of going unnoticed. Hopefully now though, this thread will make the difference.
  5. Bawse

    Missing Infantry Spawns

    >>Gets attacked by 3k russians on the warmap >>Only 21 russian infantry spawns in-game >>Germany wins in less than 5 minutes I don't mind Germany winning war battles insanely fast, but at the end of the day, it's extremely broken. War battles have just been us getting revenge on the Russians and making them lose morale every 15 minutes with only a handful of men. After a while, it gets boring Welp, back to staged... at least THAT isn't broken... yet ...
  6. I didn't know they were moving, We aren't all in-the-know about everything Reto does/is doing, you know. And yes it is summer, good for you to point that out... I didn't come here to be salty. I came to provide constructive criticism and feedback, and I have. Good day.
  7. I'm so glad that the Devstreams are back. Being MIA like that kind of scared some of us into thinking the devstreams were going to be spread even further apart or gone forever. First of all, I like the new style you guys set up. By having one Reto do the entire stream by themselves (Although I think there may have been some Retos working in the background) made the stream run smoother. Having entire minutes of the stream where Retos have to switch seats (in some streams) and where transitions are sometimes long and awkward kind of ruins it. Just having the one Reto do it all themselves makes it so that there's little to no delay when transitioning from one topic to another. Also, having the one Reto sitting there actively engaging with the viewers makes us feel more like a part of the streams themselves, instead of only interacting with us for Gold Giveaways. I would still like to see some of the regular devstreams though, for when there's BIG announcements for new updates. Regardless, this new setup has a lot of potential. Reto can have content about the mini-updates, as well as announce crucial hotfixes (new gun sounds, thank you Reto) and do some Q&As (sent in before or during the stream), as well as doing some play-sessions with the fans, prototype and live. This I feel was definitely a good move. Minor things that weren't mentioned: the facecam could probably be better positioned in the top-left corner of the screen. I couldn't see whether or not the tanks still took damage after hitting a pebble cause your chair was in the way. Repositioning the facecam would make it so that it doesn't obstruct the health-bar/stamina-bar and other things in the bottom-left corner. Say for instance the damage has been changed on some weapon and you want to showcase that, or there might be more functionality with medic/healing/repairing, or other various UI additions/fixes that might come in the future. Unless of course you guys plan on doing something in the future in the top-left corner for HnG, I think that would be the best position. As far as Microphones go, headset mics are usually a bit unreliable as far as quality goes. I think the volume problem could be fixed if you had a better mic, possibly some software to control the volume so that you don't hurt my ears (timestamp: 32:41). If you end up deciding on getting a better headset, Sennheiser is a very good brand, and from my experience doesn't sound like an old telephone or AM radio when you speak into it. Still, you might have to invest in a tabletop or overhead mic, depending on whether or not you still want to stick with a headset mic. Otherwise, I think you guys did good. Keep up the great work!
  8. This was what I was going for originally. All these pointless buffs don't mean anything when no one uses them. So in an effort to force the teamplay Reto so desperately wants, nerf the certain parts of gameplay that gets exploited so much already so that players HAVE TO work together. Nerfing the amount of spawns that players use for spawning vehicles would force this teamplay. If you have people wasting resources because everyone has their own car, and no one is using it to get the TEAM to the front, then something HAS to be nerfed. Also: @arsnicthegreat Excuse my saltiness, but I've had more time to think about this: You had this to say earlier: The first thing you have to recognize is that no, they won't loving work together. Most squads are made up of a bunch of randoms. To that I say, of course randoms will hate it at first. But Reto wants Teamplay in their game. If these whiny randoms can't work together, then they shouldn't be playing HnG, according to Reto's "goals." Right now, Staged Matches and even some War Matches consist of people running off to the other side of the map doing God-knows-what while the rest of the team suffers because they don't have enough manpower/firepower to hold the line/make a successful assault. On that note, if someone IS abusing resources, the squad - or team if it gets to that point - has the right to kick that player from the match. It still makes zero sense. In this case, it'd be better for the enemy to leave enemy vehicles alone. In what world does that happen? It makes perfect sense. Blowing up your method of mobilization to deny the enemy access to it has been a part of warfare for several decades, possibly centuries. Tankers blew up their own tanks back in WWII to prevent the enemy from utilizing it. Vehicles have been booby-trapped for the same reasons. So in what world does that happen? The real world maybe? No, it doesn't. Making it a little mini-game to go out and destroy as many of your OWN vehicles as a necessity to get some more vehicles is just stupid. I mean if realism and teamplay is what Reto wants, this is one of the most effective ways to force the players to work together. And if your team KNOWS how to play and PLAYS WELL, there will be no need for this so-called Mini-Game you're complaining about. Tanks aren't protected because infantry would rather drive to the point in their own car instead of having a mutually beneficial relationship with their fire support. And I'm not saying all infantry should be huddled around the tank, but when you have 2-3 infantry guarding the tank from enemy AT, that tank is far less likely to be destroyed, and therefore becomes more effective in combat, which in turn would make the Tanker class finally playable and enjoyable. If the unfortunate event does occur that everyone in the squad gets annihilated - as it is bound to happen sometimes - then yes, vehicle-based spawns shouldn't be restricted to how many are in the field. A 1 or 2-minute cooldown to spawn another vehicle would be enough to add value to the vehicles themselves. Adding this isn't an unfair nerf, it just means the playerbase will have to adapt to how the gameplay works, or uninstall because they can't adapt to something that makes practical sense. In the real world, competent commanders and generals don't just give away vehicles and tanks and planes like it's soup at a soup kitchen. If the risk is worth the reward, generals may fork out some resources here and there, but only after carefully pre-planning as much as they can. Would it be responsible for them to just throw out several Tigers or Shermans or T34s just because tanks are "scary, big machines?" Even something as insignificant as a jeep shouldn't be massively stockpiled into a battle, especially if the town is about to be surrounded. I'm sorry, but that's just not stupid. When it comes down to it, Reto cries that they want their teamplay in their game. Like I stated before, pointless buffs won't make the gameplay better. If Reto adds these vehicle spawn nerfs, that will make a domino effect so that Armor Support will actually be used. It will make it so that players will be forced to work together. Sure, many randoms will quit because they can't work together with their team, and sure, randoms will be kicked or rage-quit because playing independently will be discouraged and nerfed in order to suit Reto's agenda. But for the randoms that DO participate and DO work together with each other, my theory is that they will be around longer because they can work well with a team that works well with each other, and therefore win more battles. Also, the queues in the RTS for vehicles would go down significantly because players would be doing their best to preserve their resources - probably not for the generals' sake mind you, although it is a big plus - but for their own desire to win the battle. After all, one of the main reasons that players never play HnG again is because of the false advertising about "Teamwork" and how everyone just sits on their bums hiding in ferns and hedgerows worried more about their K/D rather than actually winning the game. If Reto wants to keep their playerbase, nerfing something so simple as vehicle spawns would drastically change how the FPS is played, and actually keep the players coming back for more.
  9. Disregard everything I've said before then @Arsnicthegreat except: No, it doesn't. Making it a little mini-game to go out and destroy as many of your OWN vehicles as a necessity to get some more vehicles is just stupid. If Reto wants Teamplay and Realism like they say they do, adding elements like everything that I mentioned that would force teamplay should be something they should do. Unfortunately, this has never been Reto's strong suit, therefore everything I suggested should not be considered However: Also, when a player spawns on foot then presses F11 immediately after spawning, that player should not be allowed to spawn in a vehicle for the rest of the match, considering they WILL attempt to exploit that. That should go without saying, but considering Reto doesn't look into how things can be exploited, it had to be said. Otherwise, Gramprey +1
  10. First of all, having 1 or 2 vehicles to a squad would force the soldiers to actually work together to preserve their ability to mobilize. If enemies could easily go out of their way to camp the vehicle, then the squad would have to be forced to make sure that didn't happen. Secondly, blowing up the squad's jeep may be necessary sometimes - like when your position is about to be overrun - but in order to cut down on abusing resources, infantry should be discouraged from using the jeeps as a "Point A To Point B, Drive and Forget" and instead use it to patrol, transport, and mobilize. I don't know about you, but if realism is what you're going for, then making this a thing definitely makes sense. -Higher spawn cost would definitely add incentive to preserving vehicle spawns. Not much incentive, but it would. -Adding survivability to the Jeeps and Bikes is irrational. A panzerfaust should be able to easily take out a jeep or a bike. it just makes sense. -Adding a longer spawn timer was something I mentioned earlier, but it was only in the context of destroying your sqaud's vehicle. Will edit my original post to change that, cause I definitely agree with you on that. ~Honestly, removing the delay penalty on killing your squad's vehicle should be disregarded. Also, I'm currently undecided on the score penalty considering I had time to think about it a bit more. Otherwise everything else makes sense in my opinion.
  11. But in order to make effective use of the jeeps as a mode of transportation, the one-way ticket to the action has to be nerfed in some way. Limiting the amount of jeeps or bikes spawned into the game would be good enough, like say every squad can only spawn one jeep and/or one bike, which would largely depend on, but not limited to, the following: If there's only a one line assault The number of squads operating on that line If your team is Attacking/Defending the Map The number of squad-mates in a squad EDIT: How long it's been since your squad last spawned a vehicle Also: If the squad already has a vehicle up, it must be destroyed by the enemy before spawning in a new vehicle (That might be too much...). Killing your own squad's jeep via "non-Accident" methods will give you -5 points and a deploy delay penalty of another vehicle by a full minute. If you vehicle does get destroyed from an Accident such as it getting flipped or drowning or hitting a tiny pebble there should be no penalty to the squad as to deploy another jeep, only to the player that killed themselves and/or their vehicle in the first place. That way, Reto gets the "Teamwork" they so desperately want in their game. Either that or several more players will bail on HnG crying about how they "can't have their own vehicle!" Although to be fair, if those "point-rushers" that rush-and-abandon - or die en route - have a monopoly on the supply of vehicles, then I'd honestly rage-quit too. Regardless, adding an indication to see if anyone in your squad is spawning in a vehicle would help save on resources drastically. "Player A is spawning in a Kubelwagen, that means Player B and C can (and should) spawn in on that instead of spawning in two more Kubelwagens. And while it's still spawning in, you can click on the vehicle in the indication area and be set to spawn in on it while it's still spawning." I can see Reto doing this and actually being praised for it. This endless spawning of vehicles pisses off many generals who have to wait 2-3 real life days to reinforce 30 vehicles that they lose in 15 minutes. At least this way the players and generals will get peace-of-mind knowing that extra spawns can be deterred by a simple indication.
  12. This... I bet many people never even thought of this, yet it makes total sense. +1 for you gramprey
  13. Bawse

    Meanwhile in the German Army chat...

    Lol I just found this... Good times... Wasn't this from last July?
  14. They've been working on camera issues for a couple of months. Hopefully with this new client, it will be a stepping stone to fixing the processor issues, and allow for cars and tanks to be filled with Tommys and PPSs and MP40s. Then AT rambos will have to get REALLY creative, and Tankers will be able to breathe easier for the first time ever.
  15. Bawse

    Anti-Aircraft Tanks

    AA Tanks would go great with this game IF there were more planes. Reto announced at the beginning of the year that they were working on a new plane system and new mechanics for Tanks and Vehicles as well. When the new planes come out, then AA tanks might be considered, but at this point it's pretty useless considering the AA halftracks aren't even used. Also Heavy Tanks shouldn't be used to combat planes. That isn't what their role is supposed to be. Heavy tanks are meant to terrorize and take a massive beating against the enemy (which is also broken but that's for a different forum), not act solely as Anti Air Support. As for the solutions: 1. I agree that the Flak Jacket badge should be removed. It makes the game extremely unbalanced and unplayable for many players who do not know how to attack or avoid bombing/strafing runs. 2-4. Airplane Mechanics and Physics have needed a major overhaul for a few years now, and hopefully Planes 2.0 comes out Soon™. AT Rifles would probably be the direction that Reto will go, considering that they've already hinted at more AT Rifles, namely the PTRS in their last devstream. Regardless, adding AA tanks is unnecessary at this point for a few reasons, excluding the ones already mentioned: 1. The maps are simply too small. I'm not just talking about land mass here, I am talking about the height maps as well. People have complained about how small the maps are, and I agree Reto needs to expand them. The assault maps are about 2-3km x 2-3km within the playable map, and the height map goes only as high as 2km, probably less. To expand the maps would not only make the game more interesting and less linear, but it would also make it harder for the AA to shoot down planes from halfway across the map. Once the sizes have been dealt with, and more players are allowed per match (think 32-32) then AA tanks would definitely work in this game. 2. I implied in my last point that the AA shouldn't be able to fire so easily at the planes. This is why: When you have 20mm FlaK rounds firing at a plane, the plane should take a lot of damage - if it's not destroyed - when the round makes contact. Once the planes are faster and have more realistic physics, it should require an effort to shoot them down. The AA guns in their current state are virtually useless; you could empty an entire clip into a fighter plane, and it won't catch on fire, which may be in part due to the aforementioned Flak Jacket Badge. When the Anti Air Damage and Damage System for Planes are overhauled and fixed, then it would make sense to add SPAAGs onto the tanker class, probably under a Specialist Tanker Tier where Self-Propelled Howitzers and Flamethrower tanks are added. Furthermore, if Reto did something like expanding the maps or adding side objectives (in-game or on the war map) to make Anti Air/Air combat less stale, then adding AA tanks would have a higher purpose. But given the fact that the AA halftracks only appear in less than 5% of ISV/Plane battles, there is no need for them at this time. But this is a good idea for a much later date.