Members - Veterans
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

77 Neutral

1 Follower

About dadeoplanets

  • Rank
    Technician 4th

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
  • Soldier

Recent Profile Visitors

876 profile views
  1. seems like a simple fix that could help (wont solve) the issue
  2. dadeoplanets

    1.14.1 - New Anti Tank Weapons and More!

    Apologist in action? Game has potential but if it does not improve without acknowledging the issues, it will die. did you read my whole post? All I'm saying is keep some reasonable perspective and expectations, and some politeness and human decency. Yes, they can do better. Are they doing well enough? for me, yes - I'm playing this game and enjoying it (as a soviet main for the last year or so)... despite having my own list of things I wish they did better, I don't let it eat me alive like some people on the forums seem to do. Regarding your and other peoples PTRS point, I totally agree, 650K seems inappropriate and they should fix the cost of it and the PTRD, no later than when they tune the AT weapons effectiveness per Hades post.
  3. dadeoplanets

    1.14.1 - New Anti Tank Weapons and More!

    sorry, but there has been tons of new content - just because it is not what you want, doesn't mean there hasn't been any. Also, what other devs are you talking about?!? if it is Battlefield, COD, etc type games it is totally apples and oranges - those guys have hundreds of people working on those games over several years, costing $50-100M+ to develop. Bohemia Interactive, the company that makes ARMA, also has like 300+ employees ( Take a look at If instead you compare RETO to other"small" game houses - the folks who put out post scriptum, hell let loose, etc then RETO's 18 devs are doing just fine - look how long it has taken HLL to get to beta (not done yet, has slipped multiple times - oh, and how many unique maps does it have?). I'm sick of people using a major dev house yardstick to measure this mini game company and its peers. - Can RETO do a better job on some of their game features, maybe picking what they work on? yes definitely, but within limits of their resources and skill set. - can they do a better job fine tuning? yes! E.g 650K PTRS - seems a little odd. But move on, don't buy it then. - Can they do a better PR job explaining their plans, why they are doing things, etc yes, no doubt. - Can they be generating content any faster? I would say no, not really - they are putting out 1 update a month for the last few months. Sure there are bugs / tweaks, but clearly they are vested and not sitting on their laurels (even if not everyone likes the stuff they are working on). So for crying out loud, put things in perspective when you post here, and stop the incessant purely negative whining (I know, hopeless request, its the internet).
  4. dadeoplanets

    do you win warfunds?

    Bottom line is I agree with you: if you are paying for Vet, which runs close to $60/yr, you should not have to additionally fork over cash to maintain and grow an army... the WF math needs to be cleaned up and made a little more favorable (maybe vet WF bonus should go from +75% to +100% as a start). more details / my experience: Everything Kyrie said is of course true, but honestly, I have found that I usually come out between -10% (if significant # of units got encircled or moralled out) to + 50% WF gain per war, with the average probably around +10-15%... but that gain includes my FPS winnings. W/o the FPS winnings I'd break even or be negative more often, maybe my average gain would be 5%. I play about 5-15 FPS battles per week, and only move my ATs around in the morning briefly and evening for a couple hrs during week, longer periods on some weekends. Currently playing sovs, with a small army of 50K WF (few months ago) to almost 100K WF today (thank you battle of berlin). Mostly infantry units, but 4 recon, 5 armor, 1 med fighter. About 1/4 of my inf ATs have no vehicles, and I try to preferentially get those into battles. I will throw my mot inf into battles as well, but try to use those in more strategically important battles if possible where the higher likelihood of WF loss has some benefit. growing the army - I benefitted significantly from the Nov 2017 free deploy event and I would say w/o the WF stash that I made then I would be WF limited in my ability to grow the army since gaining WF is so slow compared to the cost of new ATs. I would say I play the same way you do - generally avoid over stacked towns, when I am on line try to get my units into battles so they get used, etc. I play with clans part time, but a) they are not "god" clans and b) the majority of the time my units are not in those battles. W/o vet this would be totally hopeless. However, since you do have vet I'm surprised your long term trend is to have losses.
  5. I'd be ok with reduction in specialized (non infantry, non-Para) AT size. Could do it as an experiment for a month or two to see how it impacts things. Reto has changed AT size in the past (at least for inf). I think it is important for infantry units to stay the same size so that small generals dont lose the ability to make at least one or a hand full of battles "fun"... if you can't make a battle fun you can't really influence the map much. I would love to see these kinds of new features / game modes added to RTS to add some depth to the game play (especially the recon intel gathering, paratrooper infrastructure raid, and airplane interdiction raid kinds of mission - you could imagine new RTS map elements like roads, bridges, that would not support a regular "FPS battle" but maybe just special missions like this). One of these days maybe RETO will actually add something to the dev overview to give us a hint as to how they want to move the RTS game forward... or perhaps that is too much to wish for.
  6. dadeoplanets

    Just want your thoughts

    yeah, despite the giant amount of complaining about HnG from parts of the player base, it seems it has kind of found a sweet spot between realism and arcade, and with a functional and reasonably simple RTS (that could still be MUCH better)... so I wouldn't make major over-hauls like that. Improve the current game, show the RTS some love (multiple recent threads on excellent RTS upgrade suggestions - e.g. , and a few others).
  7. dadeoplanets

    Total costs being completely off since update 1.09

    good math check. Even the war 525 example, if you do some simple math, seems like it might be off. For example, the soviet row: 402388 soldiers at average cost of ~55 (since some of these are likely recon and paras) = ~22 M WF 170486 tanks at avg cost of 250 WF (the medium tank cost) = ~43 M WF 4562 planes at avg cost of 650 (med fighter) = ~3 M WF throw in vehicles at 1/3 of total soldiers - 134000 vehicles at 40 WF each (conservative) = ~5 M WF for a total of 22 + 43 + 3 M + 5 WF = ~73 M WF... even if you double this number for some reason (say all the tanks and planes are heavies, and all the soldiers are recons or whatever, or the cost of the tankers and pilots is left out in my math above), you don't get close to the 216 M WF that the end of war report claims. Something isn't adding up. `
  8. dadeoplanets

    client crash after up too long - memory leak?

    I agree. The last couple months my client had been much more stable - sometimes a single session would stay up for 4+ hrs on a weekend (probably the most stable period since I started playing in summer 2014). In the last week or two the old crash behavior has come back. Not sure if it is a HnG thing, new windows update thing, or some combo, but its back.
  9. Mostly its US is OP in the last few months... Note that Germany won like 20 wars in May 2018 due to "WF leak war boycott" by most US and SU generals. war victories since the 1.13 release on 12/11/2018 US: 48 SU: 8 GE: 2 (both of these since mid March) since I've keeping records (starting w/ war 412 - June of 2016 I think) - numbers are a little off because a few wars I did not record the victor <10? US: 184 SU: 129 GE: 38
  10. dadeoplanets

    Battle of Berlin 2019! War log

    that number by itself isn't super useful. How many WF did you guys earn? What is the gross WF change? i.e. are you saying ~3 Mil WF lost due to encirclement / surrenders (pure loss)? If so, was that because there was a large front with "smartly stacked" towns that got compressed over time so units concentrated / encircled (bad luck in FPS, para blocking, whatever), or was it mostly due to WAY too many units in too small an area? or all of the above? If you are deploying ATs in an area that is already saturated... and then you lose a bunch because there are way too many units than can be played. then you kind of create your own problem, right? No real cause for whining in that case... but you guys know that. I'm just trying to get a little more insight into why the apparent slaughter happened since I'm not on line long enough most days to really see it. The RTS playback tool would be cool for these situations, with some actual display of troop concentrations as well... I'll try going GE next to see a little for myself.
  11. dadeoplanets

    ATs retreating down skirmish lines?!?

    Alts are not unique to SU, I agree, and everyone para blocks when they can. but lets stop the personal flame attacks and get back on this topic - sure, people can do dumb things, but many times the things you call out above are not under your control - you start a skirmish, and then later a ton of other generals stack a town, or you park your ATs somewhere to help hold the line, you log off, another general starts a skirmish and the town your troops are in is lost... this is not "being dumb" most of the time, this is more often just "not playing 24 hrs a day". I wouldn't mind if it was a semi realistic thing that actually happened in a real war, but come on, no way on a regular basis does a large enemy force "retreat in the wrong direction" when they lose a battle and walk right into an enemy encirclement. The vast majority of units should do the smart thing and retreat to the safety of their own lines. If you want to keep this mechanic, then the RTS needs to get smarter about it - e.g. IF an enemy gets "quickly routed" in a battle (e.g. if you lose in <5 or 10 minutes maybe in FPS time), THEN you can simulate some kind of mass confusion and have a (small) fraction of the ATs do something stupid like walk into a skirmish line just to be encircled. Most of the time, especially if the battle takes anywhere near full duration or goes into extended time, the losing side should be able to conduct an orderly retreat to their lines. In this game that could be either defined by standing retreat order direction you give (new feature) or some intelligence the RTS tries to provide by moving all the ATs into the direction of the most friendly nearby towns / units, and not towards the enemy. You could also get clever and maybe change the chances of troops being dumb by the level they are - e.g. leg guards (assumed to be reservist, old / young folks, or whatever, that dont have any gear) could be more prone to this due to lack of training / experience, but as the unit gains XP it should become less likely that this happen - and by the time you have jeep or APC inf equivelent units (the elite / veteran fast strike infantry, or leg inf if you never leveled them up but the unit has a ton of XP... this could be "elite light infantry") this should never happen.
  12. dadeoplanets

    ATs retreating down skirmish lines?!?

    yeah, thanks for jogging my memory, I guess I've seen it exploited in the past for making skirmishes fun. For some reason I had not really seen it / noticed it when a town is lost and a ton of ATs go down the doomed (cut off from your lines) line into a skirmish. With the 6 hr AR timer it seems these situations happen way more frequently, resulting in more than usual AT wipes (from this mechanic - in general, way less AT wipes thanks to 6 hr AR timer). And yes, the retreat mechanic should be fixed: - You should be able to designate a favored retreat direction for your unit, and given at least a 50% chance that it go down that line when the town is lost. I get that in a route, units might panic and "get out however they can", but in most battles retreat was semi orderly. - Not getting XP / WF from retreated units should be removed - Retreating down skirmish lines removed
  13. so in one of the recent updates / hot fixes it appears ATs can randomly retreat down lines that only have a skirmish battle (i.e. no friendly town on other end of line). This is SUPER annoying - maybe unintional outcome of war server code refactor? @Reto.Hades can you guys fix this please? Very off putting WF sink hole when your front lines are getting pushed back and units get wiped even more than normal due this "feature".
  14. dadeoplanets

    Current position

    good point - I can see that allowing people to switch regular soldiers would be hard to implement in software due to the weapon and gear parity fuzzyness etc, but generals seem like they would be much simpler to switch over. The ATs are equal on all sides in cost, size, type, etc. I'd be totally for that. As an aside, it is somewhat liberating (from a stress perspective) to switch from a faction where you have a significant AT army, to one where you have a much smaller force - the latter takes much less time to manage in the field and even if you get totally wiped, you can make up the losses in just a handful of war FPS matches... and since you have mostly lower tier ATs, it is actually much easier to make money off of them. Let go of your need to be a whale, give it a whirl! Oh, and on the soviet side, there are no Q's, so you can play your tiny army multiple times and hence your ROI is higher per unit.
  15. dadeoplanets

    when will the next gold discount?

    early summer and winter / christmas seem to be reasonably reliable sale periods. As folks noted above there is definitely a random aspect to it as well - sometimes they just appear at unexpected times. The best way to get a feel for when sales might happen is to scroll through old news posts and pick out the consistent pattern... and then just be patient.