Members - Veterans
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About HarmlessHarry

  • Rank

Faction & Soldier

  • Faction
    United States
  • Soldier
    All types

Recent Profile Visitors

475 profile views
  1. Precisely why I've been saying the war mode in N. America is going to continue dying. Due to the lack of SU players in our region. We basically only play GE to have fun and play the game now. Fighting against SU is what we want to do, but it is nearly impossible now. Sitting around for 20-40 minutes to try and pop a battle against SU just isn't fun, making war not fun, meaning lack of interest, meaning bye bye HnG for a lot of players.
  2. AT rambo business is a whole other issue that could be addressed...would rather not go there at this time, other than: Heavy v Heavy tank fighting is a joke in this game with AT rambos ruining it so easily. We need more variety, the Marder would do that, and it makes sense. I was kind of excited when there was talk of the M3 Gun Motor carriage being added. I would really like to see new interesting content added.
  3. I agree that the 3Hk whatever is silly, but that's how this game works...nothing we can do about it. I don't like turret less TD's either, but you guys need a heavy hitting light. You already have the quick, ambush tank in the Luchs. Another Panzer II variant is kind of meh, especially since the late variants were incredibly rare, Plus the Marder would be nice in war for taking on mediums with the 75 mm.
  4. But you don't need pen, as everything pens the Chaffee anyway. You need damage, bigger gun. Plus the Marder was far more common than any late model Panzer II variant. 6x+ more were made than the Luchs.
  5. PzII G, but only a 50 mm. Not much better than the SU 45 mm.
  6. Add this: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/SdKfz-131_Marder_II.php Considered a TD/tank hunter, but I don't see why it would be a problem adding it under lights since it used a Panzer II Chassis. 75 mm gun strong enough to counter the Chaffee, and strong enough to take on mediums. Give the US their proper 76mm high gun velocity of 790 m/s for the M62 APCBC round (what people call APCR in this game), Not the current 588 m/s that is the same velocity as the short barreled/low velocity 75 mm on the Lee and the Sherman - doesn't make any sense. It would still be considerably less than the German velocities on their TDs and Mediums, especially the Panther. That poor Sherman should also actually get a magnification - no idea why it is so abysmal in this game. The M4 was the most common tank in the Euro theatre, sad that it is rarely seen in this game. It doesn't really need to be a good tank in this game, but M4A1 tankers should at least be able to see better than a bunch of early war/crappy light tanks that have better zoom than it. SU medium tanks should get better acceleration and speed, as well as the BT-7.
  7. You could absolutely. There's tons of stuff that's not realistic, but in some senses Reto has tried to keep some stuff relatively realistic, while also trying to maintain balance. Just a quick tid bit on the Chaffee, and one way I think Reto tried to force balance. They gave it one of the worst ,initial forward accelerations in the game (top end speed is good though), and by far the worst reverse acceleration and speed out of any tank in the game. In other words, it's tough to get out of a fixed position once you stop, or if you start taking fire from a stationary position. Also, since it really doesn't bounce rounds, you can be a sitting duck if not careful on how you position yourself. Even the heavy Pershing, and the early war US light tanks in this game have better initial forward acceleration, and a millions times better reverse. You can reverse out of situations and behind cover with them, not the Chaffee. In fact, none of this is realistic to the real life Chaffee. It had a very powerful engine, 2 actually, twin 220 HP Cadillac engines. Paired with a 8 speed transmission, and 4 reverse speeds. 4 reverse speeds in one of the most modern tanks of the war, and in this game it has the get up similar to a WWI MK I tank from 1916. A turtle walking backwards. Regardless, it's still an awesome in game tank, but like I said, even it has forced/unrealistic flaws made by Reto for what I assume is for some type of "balance".
  8. I agree. Which is also why I would prefer to see changes made to the MG42 rather than the STG, if there was a choice between the two. There's a lot of STG's in matches, I would like to see more MG42s. Potential changes to the STG could be discussed after a revamped MG42 has time to set in with players. Make the MG42 competitive with the Johnson and the 1919. Just less long range effectiveness than the 1919 and a little less overall accuracy due to having higher rpms and the 1919 sights being wonky in CQ situations. Basically an MG42 that performs like a Johnson, really good in CQ and Mid, but is 4Hk with higher rpm. Still making it the highest TTK gun in the game. If you read his last couple posts, you would clearly see he's not advocating for that. Like many on this forum, think/read before you type.
  9. Lol, never use upgraded ammo and the heavy bolt on MG's!
  10. Yeah like I said, the MG42 rate of fire use for infantry in WWII is debatable. From a lot of my readings, these high rpms were not practical for proper infantry use, as they would have required a ridiculous amount of support/soldiers just to maintain a continuously operational MG42. That is, numerous barrels/constant changing every 10 seconds, and obviously tons of ammunition, and a lot of soldiers just responsible for carrying and supplying this gun. So yes, the mg42 was capable of ridiculously high rpms, but that doesn't mean that it was primarily used this way in infantry/support roles. Thus, making it rather difficult to implement into a video game. How about a 1,500 rpm MG42 with a 6 second reload and 9 equp. points to compensate for the burden of changing and carrying extra barrels? Just a thought.
  11. Here's the deal with WWII equipment... There are: 1. HnG and video game stats/information on vehicles/weapons 2. Real life and actual historical stats/information/performance about vehicles/weapons 3. Ton's of myths/exaggerations on vehicles/weapons and their performance based on WWII that is written as fact. Trying to decipher between between the 3 of these makes discussions difficult. At the same time, we could give hundreds examples of how this game is not historically correct. Not to mention implementations in this game that are based on number 3 in my list. I could seriously spend all day making a list of HnG fallacies.
  12. M2, another gun that I have a ton of hours of use with - pre and post nerf. I also had the MG42 before its nerf, and used it a lot. Both were OP, reto only nerfed the accuracy of both guns, and added more sway/recoil. They did not nerf the rpm or damage. The M2 has terrible hipfire accuracy like the MG42, so no I don't think it handles like an smg. All smgs have good hipfire. In real life, the M2 had a max RPM of 900. Yes, it is too high in this game (1004), but I find it more effective at 803 rpm. The recoil/bullet spread is terrible without TG on the M2, same for the MG42. They both truly need it now if you want to be effective. Dead Eye can help too. In game max rpm of the MG42 is 1049. In real life, that rpm is somewhat debatable, but if you do some research you will find that the high rpm use of the mg42 was not for infantry use: The maximum cyclic rate of the mechanisms of both the MG34 and MG42 are often exaggerated and inaccurate. Both guns were designed for multiple purposes. The high rate of fire was for anti-aircraft use. The normal rate of fire was far lower than is often stated. The effective rate of fire was much higher than that of the guns used by the Allies, but this was due more to the cooling rate of its six interchangeable barrels, than to the design otherwise.[12] Confusion over this undoubtedly comes from the Gast Gun (1600rpm) and the MG81 aircraft gun (1200rpm). The MG34 and MG42 both were equipped with bolts of different damping rates to control fire rates. In infantry use the rpm was likely to have been lower than 950 rpm.The very light buffer has been reported to have achieved 1200 rpm in these guns, but may in fact reflect confusion over the MG81 and Gast gun rates.[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_42 ^^^There are other sources than just Wiki, but here it is the easiest to see an explanation of its rpm rate for certain uses in the field. The in game RPM of the MG42 is arguably too high as well. Mind you, a 1500 rpm mg42 would need the barrel changed something like every 10 seconds.
  13. I was responding to your most recent post in this thread talking about the M2. Then Jmj responded with a reference to the MG42. Hence my response to your two posts.... You wrote: Oh and let me remind you that M2 counts as an SMG. So M2 is best SMG Jmj's response to this: Oh and best Smg is still the mg42 as that's the only range it's viable at so try again. This is what I responded to.
  14. Looks - was introduced and classified as a SA rifle (m1 then m2 version), just a light/small rifle with a big long mag. Put your finger over that mag and what do you have? Real life range was supposed to be between an smg and a rifle (not so much in this game). Before the nerf, the range was more realistic. Handling: super quick and light to the sights/handling like the STG and the AVS. I'm not talking about the stupid/spastic recoil that Reto added when it was nerfed.
  15. It truly is a cross between a rifle, smg, and an ar. That's essentially how and why the M2 was introduced in real life. In this game: Going by looks: rifle Going by fire rate: smg Going by handling: ar Outside of spade range it has terrible hip fire though - like the MG42.