Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DocHawkeye

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
lol The reason you're sick of the world war 2 multiplayer shooters is cuz they're all the same game pal. You and I disliked Post Scriptum because we already played it in 2007 and 2005 when it was better and called "Forgotten Hope". The current steam games actually offer less than Forgotten Hope 2, a 2007 mod for a 2005 shooter, because the guys making them are not actually invested in making new games, they're invested in making Battlefield 1942 mods that a minority of people still play because of nostalgia and nothing else.

Not sure if you can tell but it's a dead genre. Between FH2, Post Scriptum, and Hell Let Loose you couldn't get a single full server most times of day except maybe near a 1 hour peak at the end of the day in European time zones. Single-player or cooperative components could be the solution, but no one wants to consider that.

 At least FH2 is free and the devs have stated that they're volunteers, it even has bots. I actively consider PS and HLL to be scams.

2
Suggestions / Re: PWM-1 Anti Tank Grenade
« on: 08-04-2013, 02:04:44 »
it was cheaper to construct

but its better to invest a bit more in a weapon that will always delivers it punch

Yeah but then they built millions of Panzerfausts. While only about 200,000-ish of those grenades. The material savings don't appear to have been worth the low effectiveness.

Quote
retty much as with the (Normandy) Bazooka which could penetrate rather 60mm of steel reliably and not the 70-80mm stated by the factory.

Part of the problem was that the early Bazooka warhead was found to have an incorrect fuse time. It would usually go off too late, causing the warhead to flatten against the armor it was hitting and then go off. No shaped charge effect, however this did lead to the discovery of HESH (squash head) munitions. The Bazooka also could still neutralize tanks in this manner, it just wouldn't be very apparent to the skittish GIs firing them. Spalling was I think a poorly understood phenomenon during the war and crew causalities aren't  immediately apparent.

3
Suggestions / Re: PWM-1 Anti Tank Grenade
« on: 07-04-2013, 13:04:27 »
*Could* penetrate up to 150mm of armor. I bet it's performance in the field was often much lower. Anti-tank grenades were finicky weapons during the war and still are. You often had to hit the tank's armor at just the right angle in order for the plasma jet to penetrate properly. That's obviously what the drogue chute at the back of the grenade is for, but they equipped these weapons to Luftwaffe Field Battalions. Who probably received little or no training at all on how to properly use it.

I could see it being useful in a pinch if they had equipped it to say, the Heer. What could this thing do that a Panzerfaust couldn't though?

4
Suggestions / Re: Better Medic- class?
« on: 01-04-2013, 02:04:19 »
Almost every army of the war recirculated lightly-wounded soldiers back into the ranks. Sure not everyone, not even most guys would go back. Plenty did though, unless you wonder where the Germans got all those guys for the Volksgrenadier divisions.

The proper abstraction for this is reviving. What else can be said about the kit?

5
General Discussion / Re: British heavy guns
« on: 01-04-2013, 02:04:21 »
No, these are american M1 90mm guns. Similar to the german 88 and also an AA gun. If you ever asked what´s the gun in the M36 Jackson, here you found it.

Not to mention the Pershing as well.

6
Suggestions / Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« on: 01-04-2013, 02:04:58 »
The entire Q menu should be redesigned actually. Imagine if you could "paint" buildings or locations with something like the attack/defense/move icons indicating the positions of enemies. It's one thing to have their position announced on the minimap, but what if squadies like riflemen could "say" to shoot/look at a general area by putting an icon on it?

Anyone could put these markers down, but they'd only be visible to other squad members just like the move/attack icons. So it's not like recon guys putting spots on the minimap, it's an actual way to direct the fire of squaddies so we can actually do things like suppressing fire and such.

7
Off-Topic / Re: Questions about tanks
« on: 30-03-2013, 16:03:22 »
.55 actually, which is a big round for a soldier to fire from a small arm to be sure. For an armored vehicle though? It's tiny.

8
Off-Topic / Re: The North Korea Crazy thread!
« on: 30-03-2013, 16:03:05 »
This kind of posturing is really nothing new for N.Korea, the world's last Stalinist state. What's special this time is just how loud they're being. They stand no chance in a war, and delusional pantie-wetting of westerners is just playing right into their hand.

9
Off-Topic / Re: The North Korea Crazy thread!
« on: 30-03-2013, 16:03:09 »
I'm willing to bet he has no interest in war. He's just throwing up political smoke so the North Koreans can finally cut back on their conventional forces in favor of a nuclear force. North Korea's conventional army is gigantic, and expensive. Yet it lacks the strength to tackle the South anyway. Problem is North Korea can't just downsize its defensive force. This undermines much of the underpinnings of the military state plus some aspect of "must save-face" culture.

So instead, they're passing the buck to their nuclear deterrent now. Which is much smaller and cheaper yet doesn't cause them to lose face. So now they can finally cut back on the military while not appearing to grow weak. No doubt Kim Jong Un is aware of how much the world has outpaced N.Korea, and N.Korea's failure to keep pace stems from its obsessive need to maintain an anachronistic Cold War size Army. They need an out, and nukes are that out. Throw in a little posturing and brinksmanship to distract from the change.

10
Off-Topic / Re: Questions about tanks
« on: 30-03-2013, 16:03:08 »
 Or killing crewmen. The behind armor effect of any projectile smaller than 30mm is not very good. So you to have aim for specifics on the tank. Very hard to do unless you know the exact layout of an enemy tank's internals. Plus I heard from somewhere that no AT-rifle ever performed as well in practice as it was supposed to on paper. I think that was just about the Boys and PzB 39 though. The rounds were just so tiny and fired at such velocity they tended to shatter on impact with armor and totally fail to penetrate.

Some, like the PzB 41 were great. But they used novel concepts like squeeze bores and tungsten rounds. You could also go really big, like the Lahti, Solothurn, and some AT rifle the Japanese used. Firing gigantic 20mm rounds is not the stuff of an easily man portable anti-tank rifle per se though. More like a really tiny anti-tank gun of which the PzB 41 pretty much was. By then you're not really talking small arms anymore.

11
Suggestions / Re: QF 3.7in AA Gun
« on: 29-03-2013, 04:03:28 »
That's the same way I feel. If anyone felt like putting in the work to model the gun it would be great placed in British uncaps near the back of the line.

12
Suggestions / Re: Plane supply drop option
« on: 28-03-2013, 23:03:19 »
Never met him, but I felt the Commander position was a great idea just poorly executed. The first thing people need to do if they want to fix it is drop the "It's an RTS mode!" ideas about it. It shouldn't be staring at a map for a whole battle, it should be about making decisions and encouraging (though not forcing) organization.

13
Suggestions / Re: Plane supply drop option
« on: 28-03-2013, 20:03:08 »
How about a bit more complexity in the artillery and air strike features? What if the Commander could select the kind of fire mission he wanted? HE-Frag? Smoke? Etc. How long it lasts, how many guns are used, how rapid or steady the fire is etc. Commanders need spots from officers or recon to spot fire in a target area though, otherwise the mission could land off target? Not sure how much of this would be feasible in the Refractor engine.

14
Suggestions / Re: Plane supply drop option
« on: 28-03-2013, 19:03:38 »
Risky but should it be show stopping? Ideally the Commander would be a bonus for a Squads to work with, not a mandatory or even really necessary thing. Besides, many of the complaints I saw against commanders were often just people who were mad they weren't getting preferential treatment.

15
Suggestions / Re: Plane supply drop option
« on: 28-03-2013, 18:03:15 »
Commander mode was a good if flawed idea in BF2 that unfortunately was never properly elaborated and expanded upon in mods. It would be nice if Commanders could do things like detach vehicles and assets to squads. Or utilize some kind of C&C mechanic enabling or facilitating spotting, text and voice chat, or maybe ever point captures in some way.

Imagine if the Commander could "appoint" flags to be capped while uncaps can't be single handedly put down by lone wolfs.

Pages: [1] 2 3