Axis doctrines rework!

Talk about CoH1 or BKMOD1 in general.
User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3584
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Axis doctrines rework!

Postby Tiger1996 » 06 Mar 2018, 15:05

Don't turn this into a melodrama, please.

Me turning it? Or you turning it? I just posted some reload time suggestions... And then, instead that you react to the suggestions in a proper way; you alternatively came up rumbling about other secondary stuff that are hardly anything important!

I mean.. really MarKr! Nothing else caught your attention within my post at all except how I said that X and Y are both agreeing on the suggestions.. but the suggestions themselves are of no focus to you ........................................... Speaking of melodrama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

X___X

Look, I am not here for a quarrel... Thanks for your time. I hope somebody could perhaps clean this mess! It looks bad.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2778
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Axis doctrines rework!

Postby Warhawks97 » 06 Mar 2018, 15:12

Well, markr, what would speak against it. We had a discussio and share a same point of view or at least smiliar. I also think, when i went through that topic, that also others have similiar point of view. Like we have many who agree about the 76 shermans issues.

Also in terms of balance and diversity: How much sense does it make to have all combat advantages on one side while another has a few while the last has non at all? isnt diversity something you like?

My point here is that we dont have a static line upwards. Like: stug<tank IV<Tiger/Panther/Jagdpanther where units are simply replaced by better stuff. In one topic we discussed how "mid game units are skipped" with short appearances if any at all. That late games turns out in "who kills enemie heavy first"?

Unit composition and which unit to build become an important question. Perhaps when facing many many shermans it would be more appropriate to use stugs and hetzers due to higher rof and numbers. While going for Jagdpanther would be most beneficial when enemie uses a mix of medium and heavy armored tanks and when you want to fight them from a greater distance? The downside would be that a number of shermans would manage to get all arround you and shelling you from short range.

So, basically, why shall a tank hold all advantages at once (damage, pen, range, armor, accuracy, rof, HP)? Just in order to fill that "quality" thing? Even if it loses one of these many advantages do you think it would be suddenly not a unit of high quality anymore?

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2154
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Axis doctrines rework!

Postby MarKr » 06 Mar 2018, 15:16

Tiger1996 wrote:Me turning it? Or you turning it?
You.

Tiger1996 wrote:I just posted some reload time suggestions... And then, instead that you react to the suggestions in a proper way;
What do you expect of me? I clearly said this:
MarKr wrote:Also I would like to ask you to refrain from all those "add X! Also Y is absolutely needed! It would be good if Z was there too!" The concepts are already made and we will not change them at least until they reach testing phase.
You keep ignoring it, keep acting directly against what I said and expect some reaction?

Tiger1996 wrote:you alternatively came up rumbling about other secondary stuff that are hardly anything important!
While the "rumbling" was based on your way of expresing yourself in the first place.
Image

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 386
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Axis doctrines rework!

Postby Jalis » 06 Mar 2018, 15:47

.
Attachments
Markr2.jpg

kwok
Posts: 1218
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Axis doctrines rework!

Postby kwok » 06 Mar 2018, 16:32

Too real.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3584
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Axis doctrines rework!

Postby Tiger1996 » 06 Mar 2018, 17:05

MarKr wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:
MarKr wrote:So; you are on agreement here but me, I and myself are on disagreement there so we don't really care.

I could also say that with this sentence you pretty much saying "you all 3 agree on that? huh, who cares as long as I don't! I count as 3 persons alone..." Don't you see how much this sentence is pretty insulting? Not to mention that I don't even mean it the way that "you think" I do...

You interpret it in a wrong way. It says "you all 3 agree on that? huh, who cares as long as I don't! What I think counts...

Did anyone here say that your opinion does not count? Are you trying to show off?? Or are you trying to tell me that your opinion counts but others not! I can taste so much salt here... What is your problem? Are you upset that you were not part of the conversation we had or something?
Well, maybe because you were offline?!

MarKr wrote:What do you expect of me? I clearly said this:
-------------------
You keep ignoring it, keep acting directly against what I said and expect some reaction?

I expected from you much better to be honest... That's why I posted these suggestions here in the first place!
The least of my expectations were you saying "hmm, could be interesting to test this" or in case you don't agree then I expected you would say:
"Well, there are other things with more priority to test for now" but NO! I was wrong with all my expectations, unfortunately.

And no... No one even acted directly against what you said, I only suggested testing the suggestions when possible.. and not implementing them.

MarKr wrote:1st of all, I doubt they would come here just to say that they agree with you on something. 2nd, the difference is (or would be) that they speak for themselves instead of it looking like you speak for others - again, this affects implications and all sorts of other things.

Your doubt was wrong... Hawks posted and you simply ignored his post right there, because you are apparently still more concerned on the way how I speak rather than focusing on the actual suggestions themselves in the first place.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2154
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Axis doctrines rework!

Postby MarKr » 06 Mar 2018, 21:46

Warhawks97 wrote:Well, markr, what would speak against it.
(...)
So, basically, why shall a tank hold all advantages at once (damage, pen, range, armor, accuracy, rof, HP)? Just in order to fill that "quality" thing? Even if it loses one of these many advantages do you think it would be suddenly not a unit of high quality anymore?
Man, do you think that when I said:
MarKr wrote:Also I would like to ask you to refrain from all those "add X! Also Y is absolutely needed! It would be good if Z was there too!" The concepts are already made and we will not change them at least until they reach testing phase.
That I said it because I was tired of reading stuff on the forum? I still read through it but the main point is that in the rework there is addressed more than "just" the doctrines. Most of the issues that were reported and discussed in last several months are adressed there...probably not in the way you would like but are addressed. I wrote to not ask for changes because I suspected that if these requests came, they would be conflicting with the stuff I've already made (which is lots of hours of work) and the work would just start all over. That was my suspicion and you guys confirmed it with the very first "suggestion list" and keep confirming it still.

Tiger1996 wrote:Did anyone here say that your opinion does not count?
You did not get what I meant...
Tiger1996 wrote:Or are you trying to tell me that your opinion counts but others not!
Oh, I take it back, you got it right!
Tiger1996 wrote:What is your problem?
I already told you:
MarKr wrote:this weird, pompous style of pointing out that someone else agrees with you makes it sound like "look, they agree! Now it has more weight and thus should be implemented".
(...)
I take it as you write it but it has already happened that somebody started argumenting with crap like "Tiger said others agree with him, why don't you listen then?" - so it is more about the effect of these implications on people who are actually unable to "take your words simply as they are".

Tiger1996 wrote:Are you upset that you were not part of the conversation we had or something?
Well, maybe because you were offline?!
LOL, sure, MarKr is hurt because the big boys did not invite him over for a chat :lol:

Tiger1996 wrote:I expected from you much better to be honest... That's why I posted these suggestions here in the first place!
The least of my expectations were you saying "hmm, could be interesting to test this" or in case you don't agree then I expected you would say:
"Well, there are other things with more priority to test for now" but NO! I was wrong with all my expectations, unfortunately.
Well, they taught me at home not to lie, so I wouldn't be able to say either of those sentences...

Tiger1996 wrote:Your doubt was wrong... Hawks posted and you simply ignored his post right there, because you are apparently still more concerned on the way how I speak rather than focusing on the actual suggestions themselves in the first place.
If you take a look at the times when my and Hawk's posts were posted, you will notice that he posted his 4 minutes before I did mine. You can immagine that writing a post with all those quotes takes time so you can easily deduce that I had started writing my post when there still was no post from Hawks. On the "preview" function you are notified that someone else posted, that is true, but what you cannot know is that I was busy and fruther editing the post to also include reaction to Warhawks was simply not possible due to time pressure on my side.
And given what I just wrote in my reaction to his post, you can see that your suggestions are not happening anyway so yes, I am more concerned with your way of self-expression.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3584
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Axis doctrines rework!

Postby Tiger1996 » 06 Mar 2018, 22:00

MarKr wrote:And given what I just wrote in my reaction to his post, you can see that your suggestions are not happening anyway so yes, I am more concerned with your way of self-expression.

Great, so you are the one who is turning it into a melodrama here rather than a proper discussion about the reload time suggestions...
Thx for admitting! This sentence would be very useful to me later, you may remember my words too.

MarKr wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:Did anyone here say that your opinion does not count?
You did not get what I meant...
Tiger1996 wrote:Or are you trying to tell me that your opinion counts but others not!
Oh, I take it back, you got it right!

Too much salt...

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2154
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Axis doctrines rework!

Postby MarKr » 06 Mar 2018, 22:26

Tiger1996 wrote:Great, so you are the one who is turning it into a melodrama here
LOL, you really think this is goning to work on me? :lol:
Tiger1996 wrote:rather than a proper discussion about the reload time suggestions...
This was aimed ar Warhawks so you maybe overlooked it so I will post it once more:
MarKr wrote:Most of the issues that were reported and discussed in last several months are adressed there...probably not in the way you would like but are addressed. I wrote to not ask for changes because I suspected that if these requests came, they would be conflicting with the stuff I've already made (which is lots of hours of work) and the work would just start all over. That was my suspicion and you guys confirmed it with the very first "suggestion list" and keep confirming it still.
What do you want to discuss? You want me to change the changes, of which you don't know jack yet, because yours are better? :?
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2778
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Axis doctrines rework!

Postby Warhawks97 » 07 Mar 2018, 14:04

Oh. I just saw that the stuff about reload times etc has been posted here by tiger. To my surprise. When i made the post i thought its in the "Tank philosphy" thread.

I am a bit confused bc i didnt want to add "x" "Y" when this was your point. Anyway, i hope i didnt bother too much. I will simply wait then. Looking forward to see the results of your work.


Return to “General - CoH1 / BKMOD1”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest