warhawks97 \ tiger1996

Use only if your topic doesn't fit into one of the categories above.
Yafa
Posts: 105
Joined: 25 Jun 2015, 00:26

warhawks97 \ tiger1996

Postby Yafa » 11 Aug 2015, 04:23

for sure both are the most active forum members.
both are good players too.
but probably tiger favors axis.
and hawks favors allies.
tiger maybe has a better connectivity with the developers.
hawks maybe has more friends and so a better acceptance.
one keeps opening new discussions ... hawks.
another finally creates patch topics ... tiger.
while they are quarreling a lot.
whatever ...... they both bring valid points at the end.
and so i think the two of them are important here , we need them together !

if u have personal notes at any of them .. please keep it private.

User avatar
Butterkeks
Posts: 492
Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 17:42
Location: Germany

Re: warhawks97 \ tiger1996

Postby Butterkeks » 11 Aug 2015, 08:21

for sure both are the most active forum members.
Warhawks is agood player too.
but definitely tiger favors Axis.
and hawks sees that Allies have many disadvantages.
tiger molests the devs more.
hawks is respected by the whole community.
one keeps opening new discussions and participating in old ones with good arguments and evidence ... hawks.
another overtakes every discussion by simple flaming and spamming his demands which have to be implemented because he wants them like this ... tiger.
while they are quarreling a lot.
whatever ... at least Hawks brings valid points at the end.
and so I think only one is important here, we need only hawks!

I guess that's what you wanted to write, so I corrected it for you ;)
Np ;)

User avatar
Cyberzombie
Posts: 76
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 01:45
Location: Germany

Re: warhawks97 \ tiger1996

Postby Cyberzombie » 11 Aug 2015, 09:05

perfectly corrected butter :D

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3641
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: warhawks97 \ tiger1996

Postby Tiger1996 » 11 Aug 2015, 10:32

That's positive, but some people would remain negative.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2826
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: warhawks97 \ tiger1996

Postby Warhawks97 » 11 Aug 2015, 17:14

Describing me as "favoring allis" isnt correct. Funnily the first things i saw and wrote about in the WT topic was an OP allied plane (the F2A1 Buffalo in RB) the the quite disappointing me109 E series which has some kind of wrong flight models. So there i am everything but an allied fanboy and mainly stopped flying the past week coz of the 109 E which doesnt fit in any description of ww2 reports and pilot reports.


Just why i dont have that much fun with allied is (esspecially US) is because of being completely uncapable actually to do some ranged fights (esspecially infantry engagments, but also as for tanks when it comes to the 90 mm canon and 76 vs tank IV´s). The crazy "russian style" which means just endless sending of troops which doesnt show any results except leaving axis with mega monster vet stats and the arty which is..... like russian in ww2 again just as their tanks. Their elite inf units are everything but elite units and i could continue that way. Attacking without mega defensive emplacment back up is suicide in late game coz when your assault is counterattacked by axis tank those would chase you till your own base..... and then people complain about defense emplacment spam and arty abuse *facepalm*

I think some things should be better pointed out in which US strenght was based actually.

1. Modern, flexible (100% mechanized) artillery but also highly accurate arty and reworked artillery command tree. What we describe in BK as "VT ability" was orginally developed and used by US.... still theirs is worse and axis have VT even for rocket launchers -.- that feels so off
2. logistic power
3. flexibility due to access to many vehicles which had been cheap but also good (HT´s, trucks etc)
4. Air power
5. M1 Garand. Its simply fact that the ww2 was the war which showed the superiority of automatic weapons for infantry men over those with bolt action. Even germans realized that by starting with stgs and G43. But in game the m1 is everything but good when compared to other rifles.... and that close range advantage thing..... 90% of axis in has stgs, so this advantage is dead as soon as grens arrive (very soon).
6. High servicability of mechanized forces and access to sufficient number of tanks in all divisions.


And what they have? logistic only.... the sericability of mechanized forces isnt higher than those of PE and even def doc keeps his vehicles better combat ready as US (dont come now with armor doc engis... i am talking about the factions in general).

And instead of having one of these 6 advantages pointed out we simply got the silly SP (honestly the last thing i would have added to US) -.- ..... And everybody arround says: Look over there! US got an SP... Now everything is fine *facepalm* That tank was the greatest mistake of BK history. Simply giving US something that is supposed to be "axis style". Just dump


So what i would have made for US (instead of SP) according these aspects.

1. AT least SPG´s in inf and armor doc (105 armor, priest inf). Also 75 mm HT in inf doc. Howitzers would stay though we sadly cant make them "mechanized"
2. Its there
3. Cheap trucks, cheap standard vehicles (transport HT´s like 180- 200 MP, stuart like 300 mp, greyhound 320 mp)
4. It exist, just bombs are very buggy and the US as factions using more rockets on planes as anyone else on ww2 have not a single rocket strike.
5. changed M1.... in return weapon upgrades less cost effective as axis (Thompson cost as much as stg as sample or the M1919A6 rare and only for inf doc). But therefore no more peashooting.
6. Cheap engineers could be an option to be able to field more, just as sample


Axis are kept more realistic when looking at what made them effective.

1. Many field improvisations on vehicles.
2. Good tanks.
3. powerfull elite inf
4. massed rocket arty
5. weapons like lmg34/42, stgs and stuff
6. Tactics and strategies


what of that is in game. Pretty much everything + more.

1. They have many special vehicles in many docs although esspecially the 234 series from 1-4 should be a lot more doctrine specific as they all had been damn rare vehicles.
2. Good tanks.... in exchange for the stuff US would get in theory there could be a +5 range advantage when tank has got a gunsight. Also maybe a "stationary sniping mode" which increases sight, range and accuracy by reducing rate of fire. Also lacking maintanance or not as effective as US.
3. they have.... even more as in reality as every axis inf squad is acting already like elites (just look how grens can attack and charge on HMG´s)
4. they have
5. Have more deadly as actually (MG42) and more as actually (STG´s)
6. They have... epic hyper versatile docs.


so did that explain a bit why i am fighting more for allied as for axis? Not just balance but also the way they are being player and how the behave.... you could replace US currently one by one with soviet of that time..... nobody would feel a difference.

User avatar
Sukin-kot (SVT)
Posts: 854
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia

Re: warhawks97 \ tiger1996

Postby Sukin-kot (SVT) » 11 Aug 2015, 17:53

1. AT least SPG´s in inf and armor doc (105 armor, priest inf). Also 75 mm HT in inf doc. Howitzers would stay though we sadly cant make them "mechanized"

That's too much arty man.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2826
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: warhawks97 \ tiger1996

Postby Warhawks97 » 11 Aug 2015, 18:15

Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:1. AT least SPG´s in inf and armor doc (105 armor, priest inf). Also 75 mm HT in inf doc. Howitzers would stay though we sadly cant make them "mechanized"

That's too much arty man.



that was the theoretically speaking:D

I just said which strenght US would actually have according to their strenght in reality. Iam currently not saying it should be implemented. So pls, dont get me wrong here oO. But when i would have started the BK mod that is on what i would have based on my "faction making".

The US would have mainly pointed out its flexibility and servicability and logistics. The Axis even more their Tanks as currently in BK (which does not mean that US tanks wouldnt be anyhow realistically effective against some of them).

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3641
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: warhawks97 \ tiger1996

Postby Tiger1996 » 11 Aug 2015, 18:54

I am also not only favoring Axis! but simply, who cares...

kwok
Posts: 1248
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: warhawks97 \ tiger1996

Postby kwok » 11 Aug 2015, 20:54

One is the hammer, one is the saw. They are near opposites and are extremely loud together. But you can't build without either.

usa history buffs might remember the federalist papers and how important it is to have these kinds of people.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3641
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: warhawks97 \ tiger1996

Postby Tiger1996 » 11 Aug 2015, 21:35

kwok wrote:They are near opposites and are extremely loud together. But you can't build without either.

But probably unlike many players do believe... Honestly me and Hawks aren't enemies anyhow as we are actually still friends as well.. very good ones; Am I wrong Hawks? I guess I am surely not! ;)
I even had my first TS3 voice conversation with him yesterday, as I also added him on the FB too just few days ago ^^

kwok
Posts: 1248
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: warhawks97 \ tiger1996

Postby kwok » 12 Aug 2015, 08:41

Question, Hawks: How would you improve a faction's "logistics"?

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2826
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: warhawks97 \ tiger1996

Postby Warhawks97 » 12 Aug 2015, 12:44

kwok wrote:Question, Hawks: How would you improve a faction's "logistics"?



Supply yard :D

It allows you to controle a larger army with less upkeep penalties. Its a bit weird but the more ressources US spends into units the more effecive is the supply yard^^- The hard thing on it is to get a bigger army since most US units are instantly dead in engagments. But thats why i spend everythig above 700 MP storage into something as inf doc.... med trucks, emplacments, tanks.... just simply into anything and that way i can use the supply yard to maximum efficency. Just its often against "players logic" to spend res into stuff they dont need right now and so many play US like brits or Axis holding too many res in reserve and having no back up during their attacks and thus being then hunted till their base by axis counterattack.

But thats what i mean with logistic. Would be btw also nice if that could be considered a bit in BK2 as well (instead making units cheaper via unlock in command tree).


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest