Inspiring for perfection!

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

2 zooks but with Hellcat sounds ok for me.


Something about 1 recoiless in package. I discussed it with players who arent in forum (Kwok, terence, Zhivago), you know devs, all said, ARE U MAD? we btw checked 101s with 2 recoiless against puma, score is 5:0 tu puma favour, 1 recoiless always missed, and 1 time both penetrated but didnt kill. Also you didnt give me an answer, how to drop 101s with 1 recoiless behind lines? silly scout car will drive and kill the in a blink of an eye. Thats why im strongly advicing to get rid of that dumb idea. Thx for attention.

[MarKr]

As u wish it Wolf, as u wish it... I am honestly.. tired!

Just as we all are.

we btw checked 101s with 2 recoiless against puma, score is 5:0 tu puma favour, 1 recoiless always missed, and 1 time both penetrated but didnt kill.

The reloead times of RLs are quite long. If they miss so often or even if both hit Puma and it survives as you say, how do you keep your 101st alive anyway? Also the idea was to drop one RL with them and give them an option to buy another RL via upgrade... You can still have two.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I am tired.. yet, didn't surrender!

So we have 2 clear examples now:-
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=565

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=590&view=unread#unread

Seemingly... No one would ever deny or disagree the recently requested modified idea about the 3rd Zooka removal for Hellcats to be there as an unlock on the other hand for the Inf doc while for the M10s to become a default unit! Excepting Wolf I am afraid.

@Sukin;
U get 8 RLs, 4 to buy.. 4 for free! Fair now...

But it's funny how u agree with me on the point of which Wolf disagrees it with me (Zookas). While on the other hand u disagree with me on another point of which Wolf does actually agree it with me (Rls)!

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

As u wish it Wolf, as u wish it... I am honestly.. tired!

Just as we all are.

we btw checked 101s with 2 recoiless against puma, score is 5:0 tu puma favour, 1 recoiless always missed, and 1 time both penetrated but didnt kill.

The reloead times of RLs are quite long. If they miss so often or even if both hit Puma and it survives as you say, how do you keep your 101st alive anyway? Also the idea was to drop one RL with them and give them an option to buy another RL via upgrade... You can still have two.

I tell that 2 recoiless cant hit shit and sucks, you replying me that i still can have two, sorry what?

With 2 rl in package you can make fast relaible at team against vehicles, other squad as antiinf with MGs. 2 recoiless per squad is just pointless, they can even protect themself against light vehicles + it takes slots and you cant already have 3 mgs, so anti inf capabilities also suffering, finally you have squad which is neither good against vehicles nore good against inf. I dont even remember how that dumb idea hited your mind, but be a good guy and get rid of it.

[Krieger Blitzer]

U really gotta have to be the good guy here who should hopefully realize it! ^^

Again with these changes; u can still get 5 RLs to be equipped for a single 101st AB squad.. and even the 3 remaining ones are gonna have 1 RL per each as a choice bonus... So what's ur problem?!

So actually nothing changes at the end except that now u r gonna pay for some of ur RLs, not all of them are being for free like always anymore!!

[Wolf]

So you are basically saying (sukin) that you just want 6x RL in 101st, beacuse that is awesome in game? Well, shouldn't we also give fsj 6 shrecks or smtn?
If 101st are so not worth it, then get 82nd and HQ later... in fact, I don't believe that you NEED 101st to have even 4 RLs, hardly 6. If you want AT squad, then.. idk, build AT squad? Or get hellcat? That was one of the reasons, why it was added in the first place, wasn't it?

[Krieger Blitzer]

He does also have normal AT squads, 76 Shermans and AT guns.. Hellcats too combined with those 4 upgraded Zookas of the 82nd AB squads!!! The RL upgrade shouldn't be less than 40 ammo.

Anyways Wolf;
Don't try to jump or deny the other recent Zookas point...

May I ask u to plz agree on it finally?!
Both Hawks and Sukin (Currently biggest 2 heads ) are agreeing on it already.. a lot of other players of whom I spoken with as well. I can invite them all so that they come and say it obviously here if would like to!! But I believe there is no need for such a silly thing U r gonna accept it.

It's even logic.. u know! M10s are nothing of which deserves to be an unlock. Hellcats are gonna become an unlock instead, even for the Inf doc as it should be then added! No 3rd Zooka on the other hand... Wolverines are by default.

And THEN... Let's close this handheld AT weapons subject forever! So.. what u saying?! I guess I won this battle

I AM NOT CHALLENGING U btw

[Wolf]

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY NO

[Krieger Blitzer]

U don't have to say it any more times actually!! ^^ Because u r gonna say YES...

Finally

[Wolf]

No.

[Krieger Blitzer]

U mean;
YES.

Cuz u simply have no proofing now... Find one who disagrees it! SO that I get 100 on the other hand

[Wolf]

"Anyways, Inf doctrine is and will be mainly about infantry, and I am almost 100% sure, that adding additional TD would shift that a lot into tank AT instead. Especially if 3rd zook would not be there.
And maybe it would even be a bit OP in the end, especially after price reduction, where you would have M18 + 2 at squads (even with 2 zooks), so you would then want AT prices to go up, on which I would tell you no again."

M18 was supposed to be Armor specialty, we then wanted to remove AT from AB squads (and it wasn't only me who wanted to remove ATs from them, which now is now only even about reducing RR), so hellcat was added (remember that I was against it ?). And now it seems it was also a bad move, we shouldn't allow M18 into AB doc, as now you want it even in Inf doc, doctrine that should excel with infantry AT. That warhawks and sukin want something is not really relevant, they would probably want almost any tank in any doctine, everything unlimited, as seen in that panther G topic.

So again tiger, I am telling you no, and you still keep coming to fight something that is not needed and I am tired with it too, so if you will come with similar posts like these two before, I will just delete them. We told you no, like many many times, this is more like trolling than anything else.

[MarKr]

Find one who disagrees it!

I disagree.

SO that I get 100 on the other hand

OK, show me 100 people who agree. BTW: even then it will be "no".

Anyways Wolf;
Don't try to jump or deny the other recent Zookas point...
May I ask u to plz agree on it finally?!
Both Hawks and Sukin (Currently biggest 2 heads ) are agreeing on it already.. a lot of other players of whom I spoken with as well. I can invite them all so that they come and say it obviously here if would like to!! But I believe there is no need for such a silly thing U r gonna accept it.
It's even logic.. u know! M10s are nothing of which deserves to be an unlock. Hellcats are gonna become an unlock instead, even for the Inf doc as it should be then added! No 3rd Zooka on the other hand... Wolverines are by default.
And THEN... Let's close this handheld AT weapons subject forever! So.. what u saying?! I guess I won this battle
....
U don't have to say it any more times actually!! ^^ Because u r gonna say YES...
....
U mean;
YES.
Cuz u simply have no proofing now... Find one who disagrees it! SO that I get 100 on the other hand
Finally

You see, Tiger, this is exactely the kind of arogancy I was talking about in PMs (to which you still haven't replied). You asked me something like "Who do you think you are?", so tell me, who do you think YOU are to write this kind of posts?

[DaŇjeL_SK]

U don't have to say it any more times actually!! ^^ Because u r gonna say YES...

Finally

like little child

Cuz u simply have no proofing now... Find one who disagrees it! SO that I get 100 on the other hand

RLY ? you will not find 10 people who agree with your idea ... when we will not count only axis players...

[Krieger Blitzer]

The Jumbo 76 Sherman, or the Pershing and the Jackson tanks are all definitely a part of the Armor doc specialty.. not Hellcats, why should they?! I am telling u they should become there ONLY as unlock and not by default unlike Wolverines.

The Panther G topic was just a thought and not a request nor a common demand... Even as Hawks himself mentioned. However that the idea got immediately denied by several players already anyways!

It's honestly not acceptable anyhow if u warn 'me' just like this Wolf.
I kept seeking for it through many different ways of which u are aware about all of them, also by publishing such one of the highest viewed topics ever on these new forums currently.. most of my topics are usually all of high views if u observe it too btw! Just saying.

Nevertheless.. it's sadly up to u at the end as I would somehow regret it...

Before I leave this forum, until the next patch maybe or probably even forever... Not to disturb u with ur decisions anymore; I would just like to tell u that it's gonna be a very big disappointment if this next patch would be just still worthless while not fixing or having solutions to any of the reported issues!
Here is another advice as well; Stop losing more and more supporters by time due to such non wise acts. I believe it's not good for u...

@Danjel;
I bet u even didn't know what is the idea we are talking about before u write this post. U can type on my arrogance.. but no sense to deny the idea of which is agreed by both Sukin and Hawks!

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

So you are basically saying (sukin) that you just want 6x RL in 101st, beacuse that is awesome in game? Well, shouldn't we also give fsj 6 shrecks or smtn?
If 101st are so not worth it, then get 82nd and HQ later... in fact, I don't believe that you NEED 101st to have even 4 RLs, hardly 6. If you want AT squad, then.. idk, build AT squad? Or get hellcat? That was one of the reasons, why it was added in the first place, wasn't it?

This is doc specifications, if i choose AB i expect that my main force will be AB units, not like "you can use pak or buy aditional non ab inf squad and bla bla bla". 6 schrecks to fjs? lol, you comparing black and white, do luft inf have problems with vehicles and tanks? - no schreck and faust 100 will kill them with no probs, also shermans never bounce schrecks. At the same time ostwind can bounce off 4 recoiless shots reciving no damage (check Urban fight replay on Lorraine if you want). Finally no one here gave an answer to me about air operations, do you understand that with this change you puting to shit any early attempts to air operations? Even if you ll drop 2 squads, 1 puma will come and shred them. Currently you can do well with 2 recoiless in package, i many times did it on Goodwood, dropped 2 101s and took main fuel.

I just cant get a point why you want to change it, you trying to convince me with "use AT teams and paks", but maybe i dont want? Isnt it a players opportunity to choose tactics which he prefer? Other players btw often plays exactly with paks and at teams. This is just an another silly step of reducing possible tactics. Moreover recoiless isnt even an OP weapon or something, as said, 2 of them hardly can kill Puma, they have almost zero chances to penetrate tigers and panthers and arround 50% to penetrate pz4. I would have understood this decision if we would talk about old recoiless, when they had 90% chance to penetrate pz4 and good chances against panthers and tigers even (and as you remeber i was the first who reported this as imbalance), so..... i simply dont see the reasons, and dont tell me to use at teams and stuff, it must be up to player choice, not yours.

[Warhawks97]

I am also a bit worried that reducing rl to one per package will make any early attempt to drop behind enemie lines quite pointless. I also seen vehicles (even HT´s) surviving two hits of rl. Also rl cant be compared with schrecks. Schrecks never bounce from allied tanks excpet the biggest while rls do bounce from lighter armored tanks. Beside that schrecks deals a lot more damage and reloads faster. Sure there is an AT team but 2 zooks for 360mp.. reliability is questionable here. Hellcats and M10 are actually only always effective from ambush shooting from close range and HVAP. During offense they are only usefull in large numbers or as vehicle killer, but not so much as Tank destroyer.

I would keep the two rls. BUT IF, really IF, you remove one rl then second one should be upgradable somehow behind enemie lines to be still able to do such missions. Also maybe the RL could be the fastest shooting hendheld AT as it is the weakest. Maybe with higher rof the unit could keep a bit effective against vehicles.


About M10. Its actually, lik M18, a kind of vehicle with bigger gun as a real tank. WE has stug III and Marder I as nice early AT tanks which are also usefull vs inf. PE has Marder I also. So why not having M10 as standard 0 cp td as well? I mean spending two CP for a tank that more e vehicle destroyer as a a tank destroyer is a lot.

Even if you dont want to give M18 as unlock then to inf doc you can use this free slot for VT unlock like def and luft doc has it or terror. So the 105 VT would require unlock but therefore with usefull range and for the ranger captian and the M10 for 0 CP. Pls dont tell me know that i would make things "equal". When all have VT activation range of 100 why inf doc shouldnt have it. I would rather have inf doc VT for CP and usefull activation range than 0 CP VT with shit activation range making it useless.

Also when you speek about "inf doc is focused on inf, not armor" i would say M10 is not really "armor" but rather a vehicle with bigger gun. Luft for example could be also considered mainly as "inf doc" but still has a usefull TD support from th sdkfz 234/4 which is in terms of gun power and speed superior to M10 actually. So M10 for inf doc for 0 cp wouldnt turn this doc into an "armor doc". I mean this doc has jumbos, how could 0 CP M10 turn the doc even more into an "armor doc"?

So.... M10 0 CP,No M18, VT as unlock, VT with usefull activation range for spotters and captain. Does it looks better now?

[JimQwilleran]

I also disagree with reducing RL. They are basic anti tank capability of Airborne. Rangers can upgrade bazooka, Grens can upgrade shreck, Storms can upgrade shreck etc. With one RL, 101 would have 0,5 of bazooka and 0,2 of panzershreck. Imo things should be left as they are. Sukin made a good point about "reducing possible tactics". I also don't like it.

It's honestly not acceptable anyhow if u warn 'me' just like this Wolf.
I kept seeking for it through many different ways of which u are aware about all of them, also by publishing such one of the highest viewed topics ever on these new forums currently.. most of my topics are usually all of high views if u observe it too btw! Just saying.

This proves only how many people you annoy.

Nevertheless.. it's sadly up to u at the end as I would somehow regret it...

Repeat that 10 times more, we really aren't bored with it yet.

[Wolf]

I am not questioning 2 RRs, I am questioning stacking RRs up to 6, we said, that we are talking about some possibility of upgrade of one squad to have RL upgrade, or drop with one already equipped. I wasn't comparing it to 6 faust effectivity, but just the number. Reason of adding M18 was simply that we won't need to have 2x AT on two primary AB units - 101st and 82nd. You are now basically telling me, that you NEED to have these on AB, so again, that reason that was supposed to convince me to add M18 to AB is now gone. You are telling me two scenarios here:

A) You want to be able to drop 101st like now, with AT capabilities like now - if we will remove and add 1RL as perma / upgrade, you will still have 2 RR. You also still have 2 zooks on 82nd and one on HQ squad. Yes, we can talk about effectivity against VEHICLES.
B) You want to have 6 RR squad as AT squad, because of AB - we don't like that, we want to get rid of that, because we don't think that is needed and was one of the reason why M18 was added. Not only that, you have still 2 zooks on 82nd and 1 zook on HQ. In my opinion that is more enough, combined with stuff like AT squads, AT guns, droppable AT, airstrikes, M18. Seems like not enough possible strategy? AB has enough ways to deal with AT and don't need 6 RR squad to "work". Especially if you claim, that RRs are not even that effective, then again, why don't you drop more 82nd and use zooks instead?

Sorry but "I don't want", isn't really a valid here, by the same we wouldn't be able to do about anything, because there is always someone who wants it the old way and you know that I am generally FOR many strategies and I prefer to have more ways of play, but I don't believe this is about reducing possible strategies, I believe this is overusing something that wasn't even supposed to be there. You also know that these kind of stuff (dropping behind enemy lines and kind of surviving there) wasn't even really possible few patches back.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

And we belive thats its is exactly possible strategies reducement, and?

[Wolf]

Then it would mean, that if we allowed 6 shreck fsj before, removing of it would also be strategies reducement. Practically anything could be taken as strategies reducement. But hey, there will be a lot of changes next patch, so for example with excepted more vehicles, you will be more happy to have more effective 1/2 RRs against them than having 2 or 6, by your description almost useless.

Its generally work of every designer, to reduce something, that is not in align with design of the game / is being far too effective / is being far too overused. Look at relic patches, they are making much bigger changes then we are, people just have to adjust the strategy, rather than fighting for no changes in current.

My point is: you don't need 4+ RR in 101st, that is not strategy, that is overusing something that wasn't supposed to work that way. We want to remove that, simple as that.

[Warhawks97]

well. What about reducing RL reload time from 18-20 seconds to 12-14 seconds. One RL in package, another as uprade for 35 or 40 ammo but at least near ABHQ available (also near those "house" ABHQs). The 101st dop cost would eventually go down from 415 to 400 MP or 385.

Finally, whats the current state about 76 gun efficency vs mediaum armor? Its an important matter here as well. Coz better 76 vs axis Mediums would make M10 and M18 a usefull offense support vs medium armor and so running asap for 6rl´s to kill a tank IV wouldnt be so urgent anymore. What about The M10 as simple standard 0 CP TD for US forces?


Finally i dont really get the discussion about 6rl in one squad, 3 zooks in one AT squad etc. Personally i dont think its such a great tactic. In fact it can reduce offense capabilties for easy reasons. When you have instead 3 101st with each two rl only one squad with 6 rl then the enemie must take only care for this single squad. If this single squad with 6 rl losses two men before shooting (against snipers/lmgs on inf) then only 4 shoot effectively for example. 3 squads with each 2 rl could lose 5 men alltogether but having still the firepower of all 6 rl´s. Also those without any AT have 0 chance to deal with vehicles and the one with 6 rls must always be near the other squads just to protect them against kind of vehicles. The next point is that the squad with 6 rl may waste all 6 vs one vehicle of which 4 shots are wasted and when a real tank comes all 6 rl´s are still reloading. And finally when this single squad is ambushed and killed then all 6 rl´s are lost and AB without any AT anymore.

Same for 3 zooks ina 4 men squad. very often 2 out of 4 are killed by sniper and mg so even with third zook only two shoot effectievly.

So as AB i prefer having shared AT in all squads which makes flanking a tank easier and assault can be continued even whe one squad must retreat. I have then max 1-2 rl in each squad and maybe an observation squad ambushed having also 1-2 picked rl´s as AB AT squad. And as inf doc i prefer rather lots of single zooks in many ranger squads which gives me more tactical options and which combined take out tanks than one squad with 3 zooks and 4 men. Beside that when i only kill tanks with my special AT squads my anti inf power is not increased. A ranger Or 101st squad that has one zook or rl but making the killing shot on a tank receives lots of vet which then boosts not only my anti armor efficency.


So for me many squads with less AT which combined become powerfull AT is more dangerous than single AT squads with lots of AT for the reasons mentioned above. I must only concentrate then to kill these single squad and then my armor can slaugther all others.


So i think 6rls in one squad or not isnt really a balance issue and remove of such option wouldnt hurt that much for me personally. And saying to Tiger that he may gets more trouble with Hendheld AT´s when many squads with just few AT can surround and shoot the tank from all directions as to face only a single enemie squad with lots of AT which is easy to trap and easy to observe.

Thats my opinion but thats why i never or only rarely equip third zook to inf AT squad and then only for ambush purposes or when i have too much ammo. I also never give 6 rls to one squad and have instead lot of little AT power which can be quickly "stacked" together or divided but never losing all AT power just because the AT squad is retreating or dead.


But thats just my opinion.

[Wolf]

There will be some tunning to possibly all AT weapons, so I can't really comment on reload time or any exact values.
But I would definitely not want to reduce 101st cost even more, so no to that.

[Viper]

hi,
although i have been registered here to the forums since about few months ago, i never joined such hot discussions:-) because i don't really have much time......but i always kept tracking the most important topics during my free time.....specifically those ones which are posted by the super active members like tiger1996, also vfa-97 warhawks and some more respectful members too. and so now i think i finally got something to comment on;-)...................i am really surprised how the devs already agreed on the concept of restricting the number of the recoilless rifles from being 6 in a single squad but at the same time they refuse to restrict the 3 m6a3c bazookas..... though that they are in a single squad as well!!!!!!!!!! why?????? 3 upgraded bazookas can equal 3 panzerschrecks by the way in my opinion......that's more deadly or even much tougher than 6 recoilless rifles for a one airborne squad to have them!!!! for me that seem to be a strange way of thinking and a weird logic. thanks a lot for reading.........

[Kasbah]

And after 12 pages is something going to be modified?